1958Fury

The Walking Dead

2012-01-07T18:06:00.003-06:00

I recently read the Walking Dead comic book series. I'd already watched the first season on TV, and a little of the second. Several of my friends talked me into reading the comics, so I could see where the show deviated from the source material and whatnot. I read the entire series and I'm now caught up to the current month. I don't know if I'm going to keep reading it, though. For one thing, I'm at a great stopping point, where I can just say "...and they lived happily ever after" rather then see how things get screwed up this time. For another thing, I don't really like reading comics month-to-month. A single issue of a comic is just too short, and I don't remember from one month to the next what's happening. I'd rather wait until there's about 25 more issues, so I don't have to read it as "story McNuggets."

Anyway, Walking Dead is a pretty decent comic series, though it's not the type of story I generally like. I'm told that when it first came out, the writer said he didn't like the way zombie movies end. The survivors always get into a helicopter or a boat, and ride off into the sunset... but you never know what happens next. It's a world filled with zombies; where are they going to go? So he made the comic intending to be a long-running series (it's on issue 90-something right now, with no signs of stopping), so it would cover all the day-to-day stuff: where they go for safety, how they keep finding food, and so on.

That's where the really shines, in my opinion. They cover all the little details, the stuff you rarely see in a two-hour movie. The longevity also gives it drama as well - they have to worry about changing weather, the longevity of canned goods, looting buildings that have already been picked clean, pregnancy, relationships, mental stability, and so on. The movies usually all take place right after the initial event, so they don't get into these long-term problems.

The downside? Well, it's a cruel world with very few pick-me-ups, and after a while that gets pretty depressing. It's hard to really look forward to reading a comic where only bad things happen. It has a large revolving cast, with people constantly getting killed off while others are introduced. Just like in the zombie movies, no one is safe, not even the major characters. I know many people regard this type of writing as a refreshing change of pace, but you know my feelings on downer endings. I generally give horror a pass, zombie stories doubly so, because tragedy is an important part of the genre. But that doesn't make it fun to read. Some of the more significant deaths still haunt me 40 issues later. It's no secret that the title doesn't just refer to the zombies, but to the main characters themselves (in fact, it kind of beats you over the head with it). All the survivors are living on borrowed time. It never seems like they're actually working toward something, except maybe a safe place to stay for a few months. This is not a story about humans working against all odds towards ridding the world of a zombie infestation. This is a story of the last gasps of civilization, of how the final humans struggled to postpone their deaths for a few months.

So why did I keep reading it? Well, that just shows how well it's written. A true test of an author is whether they can keep you interested in a type of story that generally turns you off. There are no real "good guys" in the series. The main characters are the heroes only because those are the characters the story focuses on. They sometimes do selfless things, but in truth, everyone is just out to protect their own families and friends. Some of them are idealistic at first, but that gets beaten out of them eventually. The zombies are not the biggest obstacles in the series, and they quite often fade into the background. Most of the story's conflict comes from other live humans. It's a world where only the strongest survive, and that tends to breed a lot of jerks.

I've been a little obsessed with sexism in comics recently, and I'm happy to say that I don't see a lot in the Walking Dead. Two of the most competent characters in the series are female, and I see very little gender disparity. Both sexes get killed and maimed in relatively equal numbers. Both sexes have strong characters, weak characters, and every personality type in between. Others may disagree, but I don't see any evidence that the author even considers gender a factor in deciding who has the most skills or who gets killed next. Now, about midway through the series, there was one particular rape/torture scene that made a lot of people uncomfortable. It caused an uproar in their letters column, and they probably lost a few readers at that point. I can't say whether this plotline was really needed, though it build the villain up to be that much more despicable. When the victim finally got her revenge a few issues later, it was quite satisfying, though it didn't really make up for the initial crime. That entire storyline is considered by some to be a low point in the series (and not just because of the controversy... one dramatic scene comes off so silly it's listed on the TVTropes "Narm" page), but the series does get better after that.

Anyway, whether I continue to read it or not, I'm glad I read what I have so far. Now, regarding the TV series... it's not bad. I really enjoyed the first season, and I like the way it goes off in so many different directions from the comic. It's similar enough to where you say, "wow, that's good casting for that character", but it's different enough that reading the comic won't give away what happens next (or vice versa). Like a lot of people, I did get bored during their stay at the farmhouse in the second season, and only time will tell if I start watching again. (I'm also a little miffed that they fired Frank Darabont.)

Really, TV series or comic, you won't go wrong to give either one a try.

Update 1/12/2012; Some Spoilers:

Okay, I was thinking it over, and there actually was one additional reason I might not return to the comic. It's because everybody's fair game. There's a few characters I really like, and I know they're going to die sooner or later. It might be 100 issues from now, when sales start to falter and the writer decides he needs to shake things up a little. But it will happen. Heck, I'm an issue or two behind by now, so it might have already happened. And this isn't like Marvel and DC, where death is only temporary. But as long as I stop reading now, they'll live forever.

I know that sounds silly. I mean, I can't just stop reading/watching all fiction out of the fear that characters will die. But I don't look at a long-running ongoing series as "art" the same way I would with a stand-alone movie or novel. In a novel, everything happens for a reason. Usually the entire story is plotted out from the beginning. Yes, the author comes up with new ideas as the story comes along, and things might not end up playing out like the author originally intended. But there's still time before publishing to go back and edit the early chapters to make sure they're more in sync with the later ones. The point is, novels and movies are subject to Chekhov's Gun. Superfluous details are kept to a minimum, every death has a point, and the entire package can be viewed as a piece of art.

An ongoing TV or comic book series doesn't work the same way. Individual episodes (or issues) might, and often even an entire TV season (or comic book story arc) will follow a novel's structure. But very rarely will issue 94 of a comic book series feature a twist that was foreshadowed in issue 3. The writer (if it's even the same writer by then) might wish he could go back and stick a detail into an earlier issue, but it's way too late by then. No, series fiction just sort of plods along like life, changing with the seasons, and only the most recent events tend to really matter. In a way, that makes them more realistic than stand-alone stories, because the patterns are less predictable.

What am I missing here... oh, yes, a point. My point is, while a series does have some advantages over novels and movies, they are less of an "art" in my mind. The series gets handed to different writers and artists after a while, and it becomes a communal storytelling experience, like that flashlight game you play around the campfire. And enjoyable experience, sure, but nothing I'd stick in a museum. Even if it keeps the same writer throughout, after a while he loses his original vision, and quality goes downhill. Sometimes they'll keep it going long after they've run out of ideas. This is unfortunate because the same writer might still be capable of doing something great on a fresh project. Instead he wastes those ideas by trying to fit them into his existing universe, where they don't work quite as well. And then his work becomes something so rotten that humanity itself is infected, causing the entire human race to die off, leaving penguins to rule the Earth. Sorry, I was seeing if you were still listening.

In any event, I wouldn't say that the Walking Dead comic is getting stagnant quite yet, and the author probably still has a lot of great twists up his sleeve. But so far the pattern has been "Find a safe place, make the safe place better, get betrayed by humans, find a new safe place" over and over. It was fun the first few times, but I need a break. I'm going to go read something else now, and let the Walking Dead survivors enjoy their current safe place.

Also, I wanted to revisit my paragraph on sexism, and clarify that my praises only apply to the comic book. The TV series keeps missing the mark on the gender equality front. Most of the women on the show are weepy complainers. It's particularly irksome because one of them, Andrea, is one of the most capable characters in the comic. On the show, she's whiny and suicidal. But some things are actually handled better in the TV series. The affair between Shane and Lori actually plays out much better on TV, IMO. Shane was killed off very early in the comic, and his presence on the show almost works like the butterfly effect - that one little change makes the entire plot play out in different directions. I like to think of the comic and the TV show as existing in the same continuity, until Shane's death splinters the timeline. It's almost like one of Marvel's "What If" comics; you could call the show, "What if Shane had never been shot?"

Happy Holidays!

2011-12-03T12:06:00.000-06:00

Note: If the subject line offended you at all, you should probably stop reading now. It's about to get a lot worse. On the other hand, if you stick around, you might learn something.

When I was a kid, I loved the phrase "Happy Holidays". To me, it was a more efficient way of saying, "Merry Christmas and Happy New Year". Shortly thereafter I discovered that if you use the phrase in mid-November, you can even include Thanksgiving in the mix. No longer was I burdened with the phrase, "Have a good Thanksgiving, followed by a joyous Christmas, and don't get hit by a truck on New Year's Day." Some genius had managed to reduce the entire sentiment into two words. When I got a little older, I realized that I wasn't the center of the universe, and discovered that some people celebrate other holidays instead of (or in addition to) mine. "Even better," I said, realizing that my favorite seasonal greeting was more useful than ever. No need to wonder if they even celebrate a specific holiday, I could use one simple phrase and spread good wishes to everyone.

After all, I don't only wish good tidings to those who celebrate the same holidays that I do. That would be unforgivably self-centered. And yet, an unbelievable number of pompous jerks are actually offended when people wish them happy holidays. For the love of Rudolph, why? "Well," they say, "it's removing Christmas from the Christmas season." Really? So Christmas isn't a holiday? Wait a minute, let me check the dictionary...

Christmas: "The annual festival of the Christian church commemorating the birth of Jesus: celebrated on December 25 and now generally observed as a legal holiday and an occasion for exchanging gifts."

Wow, not only is it a holiday, it's a legal holiday. Of course, there's some debate over whether it should really be a Christian holiday (just ask any Jehovah's witness), but there doesn't seem to be much doubt that it's a holiday. So unless that cashier says, "Happy Holidays except for Christmas," it's reasonably safe to assume that Christmas was one of the holidays included in the sentiment. Seriously, don't you understand the beauty of "more"? I want you to have several really great days this holiday season, but you're only wishing for me to be merry on one of them. I feel like I deserve a refund.

Now, those on the other end of the spectrum aren't off the hook... I'm just as disgusted by people who are offended by "Merry Christmas" as I am at those who are offended by "Happy Holidays". I don't celebrate Kwanzaa, but I'm not going to be offended if you wish me a happy one. Frankly, I don't even know when Kwanzaa is, but I hope I am happy on Kwanzaa, and it's nice of you to hope so too. So why should you be annoyed if I request your merriment on Christmas? Just because you're not celebrating anything on December 25th, that doesn't mean you should be unhappy on that day. Accept it as a token of good will and get on with your life, you self-centered elbow-sucker.

But that doesn't come up as often, at least not in my experience. I've known a few people who don't celebrate Christmas, and they never seemed to be as brittle on this issue as the Happy Holidays Haters. But that's another thing that bunches my boxers - people who call themselves "oppressed" when they're not. Those who celebrate Christmas are clearly the majority, but they're also the ones whining "I'm sooo oooopresssed! It's a war on Christmas!"

There is no war, and if there was, you'd be winning. Yes, some cashiers have been instructed to use broader, more inclusive greetings, but it's not like they're requiring you answer in kind. If you answer your cashier with "Merry Christmas", the manager isn't going to have you arrested. The cashier simply wished that you not be miserable on several key days of the season; you're the one trying to start something.

Or to put it another way, one group of people is giving out coupons for free ice cream, any flavor. Another group of people is giving out free ice cream, but only in peppermint flavor. The peppermint people are being a little bit arrogant in assuming that everyone likes that flavor, but so what? Peppermint ice cream is better than no ice cream, especially when it's free. And yet, it's the peppermint people who are getting the most offended by their competition. Why? Because they think everyone should like peppermint, and to them there's no point in the existence of any other flavors. They find the very idea that someone might want to eat chocolate or strawberry to be an abomination.

But I believe there's room in this country for more than one holiday. It's not a competition. I don't think Santa Claus is sending goons to hobble the Easter Bunny so that Xmas can "win" the Holiday race.

...Whoops, I said the X-word. That's another thing that bugs people, often the same people. People who think that "Xmas" means removing Christ from Christmas. Five minutes of research will tell you that "X" was a well-used abbreviation for Christ long before we had a holiday called Christmas. But apparently thinking too much gives you wrinkles, so once again everybody has to bow to the most delusional segment of society. These are the same people who keep spreading the urban legend that you can't pray in schools. Of course you can pray in school, how are they going to stop a prayer? You don't even have to close your eyes to pray. It's not like they have some sort of signal cancelling device that prevents your prayers from reaching the heavens. The law simply says that teachers can't lead prayers in public schools. Which makes perfect sense; not everyone in the room is necessarily going to be the same religion. And even if they were, different denominations might have different rules about what should be in a prayer.

But that doesn't cut any slack with some people. Some people want everyone to be required to celebrate the same holidays and participate in the same religion. It's why we have "Under God" in the pledge, and why we have "In God We Trust" on our money. Bit o' trivia: both of those are Newer Than They Think. "Under God" was added to the pledge in 1954, more than 60 years after the pledge was written. "In God We Trust" was added to paper money in 1957. Apparently both additions were the result of the Red Scare, when Americans were so afraid of "Godless Commies" that we started adding God wherever we could to distinguish ourselves from our so-called enemies. The obvious problem is that history hasn't been kind to the Scare. I think most people now realize that our paranoia was unfounded, and that maybe we went a little too far in judging other people's political beliefs. And yet these relics remain, on our money and in our pledge. Why? We know we were wrong, so why not fix it?

The answer is, of course, entitlement. Please understand, this is not an attack on Christians, or people who celebrate Christmas. This is an attack on people who are so entitled that they insist the world bow to their lifestyles. While most of us are content to live our own lives and let others live theirs, these people require everyone to live the way they do. These are the people who say, "I'm not gay, so homosexuality must be a sin. My religion doesn't like witchcraft, so the Harry Potter books must be banned for everyone. I don't enjoy video games, so they must be bad for you." And if you don't pass their laws banning the things they don't like, they call themselves oppressed.

“Yes, the long war on Christianity. I pray that one day we may live in an America where Christians can worship freely! In broad daylight! Openly wearing the symbols of their religion... perhaps around their necks? And maybe -- dare I dream it? -- maybe one day there can be an openly Christian President. Or, perhaps, 43 of them. Consecutively.” - Jon Stewart

But if you're still upset about the use of Happy Holidays, then fine. You win. I hope you have a lousy Thanksgiving, a terrible Kwanzaa, a dreadful Hanukkah, a horrible Ashura, and a sucky Boxing Day. But by all means, have a Merry Christmas.

Do Transporters Kill You And Copy You?

2011-11-05T11:54:00.000-05:00

Every once in a while, I come across a website that talks about the way Star Trek (and some other misc sci-fi) transporters work. They often conclude that transporters actually work by disintegrating you, then making an exact copy at the destination. Which of course brings up a thousand other questions. If it were so easy to copy a person, why would people have to die at all? Why not just backup all your crew members every day like you do with any other data? Even disease, lost limbs, etc, could be cured through transporter use. Why kill the original crew member? Why not just send down a copy, have him complete the mission, then disintegrate him, without ever disintegrating the original on the ship?

Here's my opinion. Mind you, this explanation is silly and unscientific, but no more so than most Star Trek technology. Basically, in the Star Trek universe, they have discovered how to convert matter into energy and vice versa. The reason they aren't killing you is because it's the same energy particles being converted back into matter. So first the transporter changes you into energy particles, atom by atom. Then those particles are shot to another location (much like a phaser shoots a beam of energy), then those same particles are converted back into matter, atom by atom. If someone simply recorded your transporter pattern and made another you using any old energy, that would be a copy. But since it's the same particles being temporarily transformed from one state to another and back, it's still you.

This is supported a little bit by the fact that you can't beam through shields. You can still send data through shields; enemy ships often communicate with each other. If a transporter pattern were just normal data, you could send it to the other ship just like you send a communication signal. You can't shoot phasers through shields either. So, maybe transporters work more like phasers than communicators, in that they fire energy rather than just data.

In a few episodes, the crew members mention experiences they've had during transport. There was an early TNG episode where they did a "near-warp tranpsort", and a crew member mentioned feeling like they were in a nearby wall for a second. A much later episode had Barclay wrestling with monsters in the transporter stream. While these are some of the sillier examples of the way the writers have abused the technology, they do support the idea that the energy particles themselves are still alive and retain some aspect of the matter converted.

Also, they often beam straight to a remote location (rather than another transporter pad). To me, this means that when they start the conversion process, the conversion back is inevitable. Meaning, your body is turned into energy particles that are only meant to stay energy particles for a few seconds before they turn back. So it is your actual pattern being sent across space, not just data waiting to be reconverted from random energy particles at the destination.

Admittedly, one thing that doesn't fit is Thomas Riker. If they'd established that one was "real" and one was a copy, I'd be fine. But they seem to imply that both are 100% Riker. When they boosted the signal that split his pattern, they were adding non-Riker particles to the Riker particles, which means that either one is made from pure non-Riker energy, or each of them is now only x% Riker. Though perhaps, every time someone is transported, a few atoms are lost and replaced with those from random energy. But since your body replaces cells all the time anyway, it's no big loss. So right after the accident, both Rikers were only 50% Riker (more or less) for a while. But ever since then their bodies have been replacing their own skin cells, so the now each of them is closer to being 100% real.

Again, I admit this is all Insane Troll Logic. But to me it makes more sense than the Federation routinely using a system that involves killing people and copying them.

Give Me A Happy Ending...

2011-10-22T13:52:00.005-05:00

We recently slogged through Torchwood: Miracle Day. For those who don't know, Torchwood is a depressingly pessimistic spin-off of Doctor Who. DW has two spin-offs: The Sarah Jane Adventures is pretty much a children's show, that showcases the whimsical side of the Whoniverse. Meanwhile, Torchwood is a more adult-oriented program with much darker themes. While Sarah Jane is off fighting rubber-suited space vultures, Torchwood's Jack Harkness generally encounters Baraka-like Weevils and other creatures you usually only see in horror movies.

But it's not the creatures Jack faces, but his decisions on how to deal with them that really make the show. Jack constantly finds himself stuck in "You must torture this puppy to death to save the Earth" type situations. His ability to make these difficult decisions is one of the character's defining characteristics. I really enjoyed the first season of Torchwood, but as the show went on, it just got more and more depressing. I don't want to post any spoilers here, but it seems like whenever they had the choice of either doing a clever plot twist or doing something cruel, and they always choose cruel. Part of me wants to declare that Miracle Day was the last straw, and declare I'm done with Torchwood. But I really like Jack Harkness, and I'll probably still watch whatever sadistic plotline they put him in next.

Honestly, I just don't like sad endings. To me, this is what a story is, at its core: Someone is presented with a challenge, then overcomes it. As far as I'm concerned, this is THE formula for writing. This is how the writer knows where to begin the story, where to put the rising action, the climax, the falling action, and so on. Without that, it's not a story, it's just a bunch of stuff that happens.

The writer's job is to come up with a difficult and interesting challenge, one worthy of the audience's time. The writer's next job is to come up with a solution to the challenge. If the writer succeeds on creating a challenge but fails on the solution, then they've only done half the work. It's like a joke without a punchline. If the hero of the story doesn't succeed, then it's like the writer is holding up a sign that says, "I suck at writing. I don't know the first thing about story structure. I managed to get as far as constructing a challenge, but I was too stupid to come up with a solution. Pity me, criticize me, or instruct me; but under no circumstances bother to watch or read anything I have written. "

Oooh! But dark is edgy! It's new, it's hip, it's a cool twist! Give me a break. We've had tragedies since the dawn of writing. Every time someone brings up how much they love the modern Battlestar Galactica, I end up having the same conversation. I tried to watch the show. I watched most of the first season, and while it was well-written, it was just too depressing. "But that's the beauty of it," they say. "Finally a show that doesn't stick to the super-happy Hollywood formula, where all problems are solved every episode."

I don't know, twenty years ago I might have agreed with that. When I was in high school, I'll admit I did go through a phase where I was sick of everything always having a happy ending. An entire childhood of nothing but happy endings made me want something different. But then I saw too many tragedies.

Which doesn't mean there was suddenly a rush of sad movies during that time. It's more likely that I expanded my own horizons. I got into horror movies. I started watching more anime instead of US cartoons. I watched Twilight Zone and Outer Limits, which featured often-tragic twist endings. For a while I really got into the darker side of storytelling. Heck, I still like these things when they're well-written. It's when they're depressing for no reason that it really gets my hackles up.

Aliens had a somewhat happy ending. Sure, most of the characters died, but I liked the ones who lived. I remember wishing it would have another sequel, but even if it didn't, I was satisfied with how things had turned out. Then they had to screw it up with Alien 3. The entire movie, things just got more and more depressing for Ripley... until she died. After Ripley found out she was hosting an alien embryo, we spent half the movie wondering how she was going to get out of it. After all, no one had had successfully survived an alien pregnancy yet, so how is she going to do it? That's the essence of drama - knowing the character is doomed. A good author lets you think this every time, but then throws in a twist that allows the character to escape. You know what would have been a great twist for Alien 3? Finding a last-minute way to let Ripley survive. You know what was a boring cop-out that showed the full extent of the author's lack of writing ability? The way it really ended.

Or how about Candyman? I like horror movies, but I prefer the ones where the main character survives. It's their reward for all the hardships they go through in the movie. Otherwise, what's the point? Why did you show us this? So in Candyman, bad things just keep happening to the main character, things just keep getting worse and worse for her until the movie's climax - that would be the perfect time for her to turn it around, right? After all, that's what a story is, showing how someone gets over hardships, right? Nope, she dies. That's not entertainment. That's locking someone in a cage and poking them with a stick until you finally get bored and shoot them. Yes, tragedies have existed since the old Greek plays, but that doesn't they're always fun to watch today. Remember, those were the same people who invented the "Hand of God" and other silliness. Writing is supposed to have evolved since then.

And then there's The Mist, but I've already covered that one. To sum up, a great movie was ruined by a silly punchline, turning the last two hours of your life into a sick joke. I still love Frank Darabont, but he owes me for that one.

Okay, obviously I'm in the minority on this one, since depressing shows are so popular. Perhaps there's more sociopaths than there used to be, and they just like to watch characters suffer. Or maybe it's easier to count your own blessings when you're watching someone who's worse off than you are. "It's more realistic," they say. But I'm not so much into realism. When I watch TV/movies, it's escapism. If I was into realism, I wouldn't watch movies about dragons and robots, I'd watch movies about applying for a home loan or getting an oil change.

I still consider Twilight Zone and Outer Limits to be top-notch fiction, because those tragedies at least show some clever writing. A good writer can get away with a downer ending. There are times when that's the only way a story really can end. Sometimes that's the entire point of the story, and it would lose impact for it to end any other way. In general, only really good writers can get away with it. So unless your last name is Serling or Orwell, you're really just being pretentious. In my opinion, writing a sad ending is like wearing a T-shirt that says "I'm Awesome"... if you were truly awesome, you wouldn't need the T-shirt. And if you were actually a good writer, you wouldn't feel the need to stoop to "edgy". Pessimistic authors are the whiny emo gothboys of the writing world.

So yeah, I'm a pretty weird human. I like sequels and remakes, I don't mind hype, I actually like the Star Wars prequels, and I now I reveal I don't like tragedies. Perhaps I'm not anybody's target audience, but I have to believe I'm not the only one who feels this way. The bottom line is, a sad ending is okay if the story demands it, but too many writers are writing sad endings for the wrong reasons.

Sequels

2011-10-15T14:28:00.000-05:00

Consider this a sequel to my blog defending remakes. The hype blog fits too; it all goes under a larger veil of "If you don't want to see a movie, then save your money, but stop complaining that it was made in the first place. Don't ruin it for the people still want to see it." That in itself is a subset of the larger category, "Quit whining, you whiny whiner." Actually, I think a lot of my blogs could pretty much be summed up as, "Don't make me come over there."

I agree that 90% of sequels are crap. But I'll have to direct you to Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is crap. Think movies were better in the old days? Come on, have you watched MST3K? There's a simple reason it seems like classic movies were better: only the 10% that were good are still remembered. Sequels are the same way; they pretty much have a 1 in 10 chance of being worth watching. Therefore, the logical solution isn't to make fewer sequels, it's to make many many more sequels, to increase the odds that some of them are good. You don't win the lottery by buying fewer tickets.

Most sequels suck for a reason. Original movies are often the result of a writer having an epiphany. Just like any other artist, he gets a grand vision that he needs to share with the world, then puts his blood and sweat into making it a reality. Meanwhile, sequels are often pushed by the marketing department, to cash in on a moneymaker. The plots are often contrived, because of the finality of the original movie's ending. Sometimes they cruelly unravel the "happily ever after" ending of the first movie. Large chunks of the plot might be the result of which actors were available. These are not the acts of a creative writer, these are the acts of someone trying desperately to squeeze out more story when there just isn't one to tell.

Even so, I like sequels. When a story is good, I just don't want it to end. Even if a sequel isn't very good, I like seeing my favorite characters again; it's like revisiting an old friend. In the super hero genre, the second movie is often the best one of the series, since they don't spend half the movie telling the hero's origin. Without sequels, we wouldn't have The Empire Strikes Back, Evil Dead 2, Aliens, Spider-Man 2, Terminator 2, and The Dark Knight.

But even if I hated every sequel ever filmed, I'd still respect their right to get made. This attitude of, "I don't want to see it, so it shouldn't exist" is what really drives me crazy. I like to think there's something for everyone. Therefore, if you were to somehow block a sequel from getting released, you could be eliminating what might have become someone else's favorite movie. All because you couldn't just ignore the film's existence. Hey, I'm not particularly fond of your favorite movie either, shall I shove it through my existence-cancelling wormhole? Let's see how you like it!

But I digress. My point is... um... quit whining, you whiny whiner! Now, bring on Titanic 2!

The "New" 52... I Was Promised A Reboot

2011-10-01T14:02:00.001-05:00

I used to be an avid reader of DC comics. I read a few random issues of Superman as a kid, but I didn't really start reading until the Superman reboot in the 80s. It was a great time to get into the series. I got to see everyone's first appearance, both new villains and reinvented oldies. They also took the opportunity to tighten up Superman's abilities and explain them a bit better. The writing was better than it had ever been; the characters felt deeper. Sure, Superman was still the world's oldest boy scout, but he no longer felt so two-dimensional. More interaction with his parents made it clear why he was such a goody-goody.

Of course, comics are a gateway drug. At first I only read Superman, but then he would crossover with another hero, and I'd pick up a few issues of their comic to learn more about them. After a while I was buying more than a dozen titles, and I built up a large collection pretty quickly. But then I grew up. Which is not to say I think comics are childish, it's just that I had less disposable income as an adult, and I couldn't always fit comics into the budget. My buying habits dwindled for a while, and eventually I stopped altogether. When I finally started making more money, I considered picking it up again, but too much time had passed. There were so many new characters and plotlines, I didn't want to have to sort it all out. There just wasn't a good entry point. The final nail in the coffin was when I sold my collection.

When I first heard about the 2011 DC reboot, I was somewhat excited. From what I'd read, they were rebooting the entire universe from scratch. New costumes! New characters! No more continuity snarls! I can finally pick up an issue of Batman without worrying about when such-and-such a character was introduced or keeping track of which heroes know Batman's secret identity. Then I saw this picture:

...and loved it.Superman's costume looks so much better without the red briefs. I'm not so sure about the collar, but it's a small thing. From what I've read, he's wearing some sort of Kryptonian battle armor. It seems kind of weird that Superman would wear armor, when one of his most well-known powers is invulnerability. But the suit looks so good, I don't really care. It's not as pretty in some contexts, though. I hate the way it looks on the cover of Superman #1, where he almost looks like a robot. But it looks much better in the issue itself:

Left: Cover of Superman #1 Right: Inside the same issue

My only serious complaint is that several of the costumes look like they were designed by the same person. Aquaman, GL, and Supes all have the high collars. Supes and Bats have similar segment joints in their body armor. Since all these people got their costumes from different places, it's weird that they look so much alike. I'm very pleased with Wonder Woman. I've always hated her costume, it was too patriotic. Why did she always look like Miss USA when she came from Themyscira? But her new one is great, especially the pants. I know their target audience is teen boys, but I still don't think every single female hero has to be about showing as much skin as possible. Unfortunately, in her actual first issue she isn't wearing that costume; maybe she'll get it later.

I'm not really digging Clark Kent's new look... he kind of reminds me of Harry Potter. They seem to be emphasizing his meekness, and making him more of a social outcast. But it helps his secret identity, in my opinion, by making him look more like someone you would ignore.

Left: Younger Clark from Action Comics #1; Right: Adult Clark from Superman #1

What I would have done:
They didn't ask me (why does nobody ever ask me?), but I had my own ideas of what they should do with the reboot. I would have it split into two universes. Universe 1 would be the "Icons" or "Legends" line. Each series would start with the character's origin, bring them up to their iconic age, and then freeze them in time. Each hero would wear their most well-known costume. This universe would have plenty of crossovers, but not to the point where you'd have to read another hero's comic to understand what's going on. Most stories would be wrapped up in within the issue, and overall the Universe 1 would be more shallow than Universe 2. Very little would change over the years. U1 would also be more "all-ages" than U2, with simpler plots and more action than romance. In other words, when Timmy's grandmother stops by the store to pick him up an Aquaman comic, this is the comics line it should come from.

Universe 2 would be more interesting. U2 would be presented with the understanding that they'll probably reboot again in 30 years, and the stories would be presented in real time to some extent. So naturally they would start each hero as young as possible, so they wouldn't be geriatric by the time the next reboot came around. The first few issues of Superman would still show him as a child, but once the origin arc was over, he'd probably be about 18. Now, comic book time is a bit weird, and you can't really make each issue take place a month apart when a 3-issue story arc seems to all happen in the same day. However, they would still age relative to the year. So in 2011, Superman would be 18. In 2012, he would be 19, and so on. When they reboot again in 2041, Superman would be 48, though he might not look it thanks to his Kryptonian physiology. Unlike U1, the U2 comics would have all sorts of costume changes, cosmic events that change history, romances, weddings, pregnancies, deaths, rebirths, and all the other soap opera-esque elements we've come to tolerate.

What they really did:
Anyway, I'm rebooting the last two paragraphs because nothing like it came to pass. For starters, not everything was rebooted. Sure, DC relaunched with 52 titles that all say #1 on the cover, but most of them still rely on previous continuity. Worse yet, they're not even clear on how much of the previous continuity still happened. Also, not all the issues are happening at the same time. For example, Action Comics is telling the new Superman's origin, while Superman is covering his current exploits. I'm okay with that, since they might want to go back a few years to tell someone's origin story. But they're not really even doing that with most of them.

Superman's new origin doesn't start with Krypton exploding or baby Kal-El crashing to Earth; it starts with him as a young adult, when he first starts to make appearances as a super hero. Meanwhile, Batman starts out with sidekick Robin already being played by his son Damien Wayne. Batgirl has Barbara Gordon once again playing the title role, but events of The Killing Joke still happened (it says it happened 3 years ago, despite TKJ being released in 1988, but that's comic book time for you.). So Babs was still shot, but she got better, and her comic doesn't even tell you how she was healed. Supergirl is brand new again, making this the 437th version of the character.

It looked like a good time to start reading comics again, but after reading a few issues I was more confused than ever. I finally had to resort to Wikipedia to clear things up. As it turns out, this all follows the events of Flashpoint, the last universe-wide story arc of the pre-reboot continuity. In that story, several alternate realities merge, so that only certain parts of the DC universe are replaced with new versions of old characters, giving us the New 52. Kind of like the 2009 Star Trek movie, it's a rewriting of history that's still based on the previous canon.

So certain things just didn't happen... but it's not just that, other things must have happened instead. Okay, so nothing happened to Batman - he's so badass, even reboots can't touch him - but he has interacted with Superman in the previous continuity, which means now those interactions were either with the new version of Superman or didn't happen at all. Hasn't Superman saved Batman's life before? Would the new version of Superman have still been in the same place at the same time? I feel like they're skipping a big chunk of rewritten content I'd like to see.

In some ways this is more cruel than if they had just rebooted. For example, Clark Kent's human parents are dead in the new continuity. Now, if it had been a full reboot, then I could imagine that the Kents are still alive in that alternate universe of pre-reboot continuity. But this isn't an alternate universe, it's the same universe, but where certain events have been overwritten. The Kents didn't just die, the final years of their lives were actually erased. Every death provkes sad thoughts of "what might have been", but in the Kents' case, it's a matter of "what actually happened, then later unhappened."

I am enjoying some of what I'm reading, but I feel like I need a master guide to see how it all fits together. After all this hype about DC starting fresh, even people ranting about them throwing out 20+ years of continuity, it turns out to be just another timeline-affecting event like Crisis or Zero Hour. I'm not mad or anything, I'm just disappointed that I'm not getting the reboot I was expecting.

Step on clutch, shift to second...
One thing that's starting to bother me is the sexism. I'm pretty middle-of-the-road on most subjects; on any particular issue I waffle just enough to offend people on both sides. My traditionalist friends would probably call me a feminist, but my feminist friends probably think I'm sexist. Anyway, not to get too preachy, but you should really read this article on the sexism in the DC reboot. I think it's spot-on, and I would love it every member of the DC staff were required to read it. If you can't be bothered to read the whole thing, this Shortpacked comic strip will give you the gist.

It is now the 21st century, and more women are into geekdom than ever before. Hobbies that were considered exclusively male when I was a kid (video games, D&D, sci-fi) now have a much higher percentage of female enthusiasts. This would be the perfect time to show a little enlightenment, and increase their readership. Sure, they might lose a few guys who were only buying the comics to look at cleavage (assuming anyone's actually done this since the invention of the internet), but they stand to gain a lot of female readers. Instead, it's like the writers are intentionally trying to keep girls from picking up comics. The comics are starting to remind me of those car magazines where every picture includes a bikini-clad model posing on the car.

I'm not offended by near-nudity (or even full nudity). I enjoy eye candy as much as the next guy. Heck, I'd be perfectly happy if DC would do a spin-off universe that was completely adults-only. But this isn't about nixing eye-pleasing heroes, or removing sexuality from comics. You can have all that stuff and still make a comic worth reading. They just don't seem to be giving women any respect at all. I really don't understand why DC wants to ostracize a gender that comprises more than half the world's population. Of course, Marvel's not any better; they have their own controversies (usually surrounding Mary Jane).

All that aside, I've always been angry at the lack of respect given to my favorite female heroes. It doesn't help that my faves are Batgirl and Supergirl, both gender-swapped spin-offs of more popular characters. But I can't help it, I've always loved them. So it seriously hurts me the way they've been killed, crippled, rebooted, and reinvented so many times over the years. Superman and Batman have had the same secret identities (minus a few short vacations) for more than 70 years. Why can't their distaff counterparts keep stable identities? I could go off on a whole side-rant about the Women in Refrigerators trope, but it's been covered by plenty of bloggers better than I.

...and back into neutral...
Anyway, despite my own misconceptions about the reboot, and the off-putting sexism, I do like a lot of what I've read from the new reboot. The Aquaman comic seemed particularly self-aware, with all sorts of jokes about him being the last superhero you would call for most emergencies, and people making fun of his fish communication powers. I've never cared for Green Lantern, but the New Guardians (a team made up of one of each color lantern) looks interesting. Teen Titans and Superboy (which tie in together very closely) both had me wanting the next issue to arrive sooner. Detective Comics has a creepy cliffhanger involving the Joker, and you can guarantee I'll be checking out the conclusion. Supergirl was decent, if a little too similar to her last "first appearance" in 2004.

So basically, I'm not sure if I'm going to keep reading, or just leave it alone. I don't need the hassle of storing a large collection of comic books again, so I'm probably going to wait until some of the better storylines are collected and released as trade paperbacks. It's sad that they couldn't have handled things just a little bit better. They almost got me to start buying comics again.

Hate the Hype, Not The Hyped

2011-09-28T23:31:00.000-05:00

Maybe it's because I don't watch a lot of TV these days, but I've been very fortunate about hype. I saw the trailer for Inception maybe twice before we saw the actual movie. I managed to watch the film and form my own opinion about it well before the hype train crashed through my living room.
The early reviews I read of Inception were great. Everyone called it creative, mind-blowing, intelligent, and so on. But as the days went on, I started seeing more and more reviews that called it over-hyped and not worthy of all the attention it was getting. In other words, these people listened to the hype and built the movie up to be the greatest film ever created, which of course it wasn't. I hate that kind of review, because it really doesn't review the movie itself; it only measures whether the movie lived up to the anticipation. These reviews also make the flawed assumption that everyone is going to experience the same amount of hype. That's obviously not going to be true, since different people watch different amounts of TV, and visit different web sites.

Back in 1994, a couple of friends of mine refused to see Forrest Gump because of the hype. They figured that since most people are idiots, anything that popular must suck. I agree with them about the idiots part, but even so, some things are popular simply because they deserve to be. Knowing these friends, they would have loved Forrest Gump if they could have seen it sans hype. But they never gave it a chance. That's how deep Hype Aversion runs for some people.

Heck, just a few weeks ago, a friend of mine complained about how much hype Titanic got when it came out. That was 14 years ago, are you not over it yet? Those wounds must run really deep. Were you bitten by a movie trailer when you were a child?

But when a movie is over-hyped, exactly who are you blaming? Are you sure it's the people who deserve it? In most cases, production and marketing are two different departments. You shouldn't blame the makers of Forrest Gump just because it was over-marketed. I doubt Robert Zemeckis himself was the one buying up ad time. Besides that, no matter how good a movie is, it's always the job of marketing to give a movie as much advertising as they think they can afford. So really you're just mad because the movie had a large advertising budget, which has nothing to do with how good the movie is.

Plus, a lot of the hype comes from the fans, not the studio. This is the information age. If a movie is good, people will talk about it. If you spend any time at all on the internet, you're going to hear about this movie 1000 times a day. I'm sorry, but that's the way it is. It's one thing to "punish" an overly-advertised movie by not buying a ticket, but I've actually heard people complain about hype that came from non-funded sources, such as news articles, blogs, and online forums. Seriously? You're complaining because a movie was talked about? Should they only make movies that aren't worth talking about?

Don't get me wrong, I don't actually enjoy seeing the same commercials over and over. I don't like seeing the best scenes of the movie 100 times before I actually get to watch the whole thing. I don't want to sift through 50 posts on the same subject just to find a new topic on a message board. But none of these are reasons to judge the film itself. I try not to pay much attention to commercials, and I already disregard 90% of what I read on the internet. If a movie looks good, I'll see it. While I'm sitting in the theater, I don't give a moment's thought to what the internet thought of it. My advice - if you truly can't enjoy a movie for its own merits, and have to compare everything to the buzz around it, then sell your TV, stay off the internet, and see movies either on opening weekend or 10 years later.

Green Lantern

2011-06-21T08:26:00.001-05:00

Green Lantern is not a particularly good movie. That said, I do think the critics are being a little hard on it. Everywhere I look, people are tearing it apart. One friend of a friend actually walked out. I'm sorry, but I just don't see where it was that bad. It's not brilliant, but what do you really want from a comic book movie? And this is a superhero who has powers from outer space, who uses a magic ring to conjure giant hands to punch people. Most people knew this going in. And yet, for some reason audiences were apparently expecting the gritty realism of The Dark Knight.

GL has never been one of my favorite super heroes. I don't like the "wish it and it will happen" nature of his powers. It's too much of a Deus Ex Machina - when you have a character that powerful, writers just don't have to work as hard. Heck, I don't even like the color green. So admittedly my expectations of the movie were low, and therefore easily met. So for what it's worth, I thought the movie was a lot of fun.

There's a few minor spoilers ahead, so watch out.

Some of the reviewers complained about the special effects, but I thought they were beautiful. There were a couple of examples of Special Effect Failure - one of the Guardians of Oa looked like he was rendered on a Playstation 2, and Hal's head seemed to change size now and then compared to his costume - but overall I loved the look of the film. I recognized a lot of the other Lanterns from the comics and cartoons, and I was very impressed at how realistically they were able to render characters that looked impossibly silly in the other media. I loved GL's outfit. I know it was the subject of a lot of internet backlash when it was first revealed, but I think the end product was great. I loved how it seemed so alive, with little light pulses constantly running through the lines of the outfit, almost reminiscent of Tron.

Ryan Reynolds was perfectly cast. Some people don't like how he played the same immature jerk he always plays, but I personally believe that's how Hal Jordan is meant to be played. In the Golden Age of comics, a "man without fear" meant some square-jawed boy scout with a one-dimensional personality. But in the more realistic modern age, fearlessness means you're too cocky and smug to be afraid when you should be.

I was particularly impressed with Sinestro. Everything about him, down to the most subtle facial expression, was spot-on with how I always pictured him. I am a little disappointed, however, that they still called him "Sinestro". Guardians, seriously, y'all are supposed to be some of the wisest creatures in the universe, but... his name is "Sinestro", you didn't see it coming? I was kind of hoping they would call him something else at first, and he would rename himself Sinestro once he got the yellow ring. Or at the very least, maybe they would give him a bit of backstory explaining how his name came to be.

With a power based on will, I was very afraid that the final confrontation would be some boring "battle of wills". You know what I mean, like in Harry Potter 4, with Harry and Voldemort have their wands locked. Or in Superman II, when the Phantom Zone villians are shooting beams at Superman's hand. I was all set to see Hal shooting out a green ray, against an opponent's yellow ray, while both characters grunt a lot with the strain of their willpower, until Hal's finally wins out. I hate that kind of thing, as it's too easy to write, and not very satisfying on-screen. And then I heard that one of the villains was a cloud-like entity, and I was even more afraid. Having seen similar battles in Fantastic Four 2 and the first Hulk movie, I wasn't looking forward to such a vague battle. But the fights are actually pretty satisfying, with Hal using his powers in a lot of clever ways.

One of my favorite things in the movie was the lampshading of his so-called secret identity. Whenever Hal showed up with his little green mask on, I said to myself, "Oh, come on! There's know way they don't recognize him!" And I was right. Two people in the movie recognized him right off, not because he intentionally revealed his secret identity to them, but simply because they're not idiots.

I say this a lot, but I don't usually care whether a movie is bad or good, as long as it's not boring. Green Lantern did not bore me. But modern audiences must have higher standards than I do (and yet these are the same people keeping reality shows on the air). I think this goes back to my earlier blog about "All-Or-Nothing People": Since Green Lantern wasn't mind-blowingly excellent, then it sucked. People have lost the ability to rate a movie as "just okay". Unfortunately, "just okay" movies are some of my favorites.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1

2010-11-19T08:02:00.008-06:00

Wow, that's a long title. Sure, they're all "Harry Potter and the x", but the "Part 1" somehow sends it over the edge.

Anyway, great movie. One of the best in the series. Goblet is still my favorite, but this might be runner-up.

I was skeptical about making it into a two-parter. The whole idea just screams, "Our cash cow is ending, how can we extend the franchise?" But I have to say, I really enjoyed the pacing. Unlike some of the others in the series, it didn't feel like they were rushing through, desperate to squeeze in all the events of the book. It actually makes me wish some of the others had been two-parters. The movie did lag at one point, but it was at a point where the book lagged too. (Or maybe I just don't like camping.)

They covered a lot more ground than I thought they would. There were several times when an important scene would happen, and I would think, "Annnnnd... credits." And then the movie would just keep going. In fact, it probably ended a full hour after the first time I thought it was going to end. But this does not mean it was an overly long movie. It is long, as are all the HP movies, but it's a good kind of long. Seriously, I saw the midnight showing, and it's usually hard for me to stay awake for those. But Deathly Hallows had my unwavering attention all the way through. And when it did finally end, it really was a perfect spot. It really left us wanting more. (...and needing to pee.)

I'm pretty sure I've already said this in previous Harry Potter blogs, but it's pointless to review this movie. If you've seen the other six, you know you're going to see this one. Who sees the first six movies in a series and then just stops? If you haven't seen the others, then you should definitely catch up before buying a ticket to Deathly Hallows or you're just going to be lost. And even if you don't care about being lost, the dramatic parts are more meaningful if you're already in love with the characters. But pointless review or not, I give it two thumbs up. It's a must-see... if you've seen the others.

Now, a bit more detail for those who've already seen it (or at least read it)...

*Spoiler Space*

*Spoiler Space*

Of course this movie was the most depressing of the bunch. Everything is coming to a climax, people dying left and right, and of course it ends at one of the darkest moments of the story. However, most of the deaths so far have been presented in a somewhat tame way. Harry barely sheds a tear for Hedwig, and Moody's death is just a snatch of dialogue. However, it ends with the very dramatic death of Dobby the house elf. I think this was a good way of showing parents that from this point on, it's going to get very dark, so you might want to think about pre-screening Part 2 before taking your littlest ones.

I wasn't as touched as I should have been by Dobby's death scene. I've never liked him; to me he's the Potterverse's version of Jar Jar Binks. I don't understand how Star Wars gets so much flak for CGI slapstick, while Dobby is loved for basically the same thing. So I wasn't sorry to see him go. To quote Chandler Bing, "Yes, it was very sad when the artist stopped drawing the deer." But my heart isn't made of stone. Heck, I cried a little in the first few minutes of the movie, when Hermione had to erase her parents' memories.

The only part of the movie I really didn't like was when Ron became a jerk for a while. It made more sense in the book, but it happened way too quickly in the movie and didn't have enough context. But that's a tiny little nitpick when the rest of the movie is so good.

Metroid: Other M

2010-09-14T07:58:00.002-05:00

I thought I wasn't going to get to play the new Metroid for while, because I just couldn't fit it in the entertainment budget for a couple of months. But then my friend Chris bought it for me. He's also the one who gave me his old X-Box 360 a while back, when he upgraded to a newer model. I kept meaning to thank him for that publicly, but never got around to it, so I'll do it now:

Chris, you're awesome.

Never mind that we're polar opposites on every issue from politics to religion; that has no bearing on true friendship. Chris has always been something of a conversational sparring partner, but I've found I need that. People should challenge their beliefs now and then, else they run the risk of believing silly things for no other reason than they've always believed it. Besides, I love to debate, and I often get along better with people with whom I can argue. So I hearby grant Chris the honorable title "Greatest Of All The Living Individuals Currently Known, Especially Republicans" (actually that's a little wordy, maybe I'll just use the acronym "G.O.A.T.L.I.C.K.E.R." for short).

So anyway, Metroid: Other M. I'm not very far into this game, so this is more of a first impression than a full review.

I thought that this game was supposed to be reminiscent of the classic Metroid games, but it turns out it's something entirely new. The controls are not like any of the previous games, 2D or 3D. While the game is mostly third person, you can walk in all directions: left, right, towards or away from the camera. So even though the background doesn't rotate in third person mode, it feels like you're playing something like Mario 64. Some sections of the map are left/right, like classic Metroid, and some sections are forward/back, so so you find yourself staring at Samus's back as she runs forward. The level map is an overhead view of the level, unlike the 3D Metroids (where the entire map was 3D and went in all directions), and unlike the 2D Metroids (where the map was a left/right cross section and made you wonder if any part of the pirate fortress was more than 20 feet wide).

You can switch to first-person view any time you want, but you can't move around while in first-person, so it's mainly used when you're trying to find something in the room. That's also the only way to fire missiles or use the grapple beam. This makes some of the boss fights very difficult, since you have to keep switching back and forth. You'll use third person for running around and dodging the creature's attacks, then you'll switch to first person to lock on to the creature's weak points and fire your missiles. And of course you'll end up going back and forth like that several times before the boss dies. It can be quite disorienting.

The previous Metroid games were built around exploration, but this one feels more like an action game. While the older games had you generally taking out one or two enemies at a time, this one has you constantly getting surrounded by enemy swarms, and you have to shoot in every direction to take them out quickly. Your shots auto-aim at the enemy closest to the direction you're facing/pressing, so you don't have to aim upwards or anything if an enemy is flying. You also have some physical attacks when enemies get too close, so for the first time you're not just shooting at enemies. The available moves depend on the enemy; for example, one particular enemy can only be killed buy jumping on it's back and shooting it in the back of the head (a move that doesn't work on other creatures).

Some fights are pretty difficult. However, save points are frequent (so far), and sometimes when you die it will start you at a nearby check point. Enemies don't drop anything, so you have to rely on save points to fully recharge. You also have the ability to recharge your missiles (and some of your health, if it's low) any time you're not currently in battle. And even when you hit 0 hit points, you don't always die right away. The game sometimes gives you a chance to run to safety and do the recharge move, while your hit points fluctuate between 0 and 1. So if you can just avoid the monster's death blow, you might be able to get a second wind.

Exploration-wise, it's a lot more "on rails" than any Metroid game I've played so far. It feels most like Metroid Fusion: There's a guy in the command center who unlocks doors for you, and sends you messages telling you to check out a certain area. Samus technically starts will all the attachments she had at the end of Super Metroid, but isn't allowed to use them until they're unlocked by the same command guy. So it looks like the only things to find are additional missiles and energy tanks. Hidden items are marked on the map, so you know when there's something to find, but you still have to figure out how to get to it. Sometimes this involves going into first-person mode and moving your cross-hairs over every single pixel on the screen until you find the secret place where you can lock on.

The movie scenes are very well-done, and it looks like Samus is going to keep having flashbacks throughout the game that tell more of her childhood. That might not interest everybody, but I'm looking forward to learning more about Samus Aran. I've read that the flashbacks upset some fans, because it doesn't follow the continuity previously established by the comics and manga. However, I never liked the origin stories I'd previously read (they involved Samus being raised by the same Chozo creatures that left item-holding statues all over Zebes... give me a break), so I look forward to seeing what the story is now. I hope this one lets you play as Zero Suit Samus at some point, like in Zero Mission.

It also has a couple of elements that remind me of the "Survival Horror" genre. Like you'll come across a corpse (sadly not graphic or bloody, but what did you expect from Nintendo), and Samus will say something like, "What could have done this?" Then a few minutes later some creepy thing might burst through the wall and attack you. Or you might catch a glimpse of a strange-looking enemy through a window or on a monitor before you get to face it later. I've found one "instant death" scene so far. I was climbing up an elevator shaft, and had to stop when I reached the bottom of the elevator. Then a tough monster showed up below me and started climbing up towards me. I found a place I could shoot that made the elevator fall, killing us both instantly. The checkpoint started me out right before that room. This time I found an alcove to stand in before I shot the elevator release thing, killing just the monster and letting me climb farther up the shaft.

I'll say this - Though I'm having great fun, so far it hasn't wowed me. Other than the Metroid name, there really isn't much to write home about. It's like when you buy a game based on a movie, and it turns out to be just another generic shooter or beat-em-up, but you still like it anyway because it's cool to control your favorite character. I mean, sure, the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles arcade game was pretty much just Final Fight with a makeover, but it was still more fun cracking heads with a turtle. If they ever got around to making a Metroid movie, this is probably what the tie-in game would be like.

It feels like they tried to take Other M in too many directions at once. The action doesn't control quite well enough to compete with true action games; in fact it feels like some of the early attempts to make a 3D Contra game for the PS1. The exploration aspect feels like they tacked it on (Manager: "It's a Metroid game! You have to give them something to find!") I kind of wish they'd played up the Survival Horror angle - I've always wanted a good "Resident Evil in space" game, like "Project Firestart" for the Commodore 64.

But please don't think I'm not enjoying it. I'd rather play the worst Metroid game than the best game of any other series, and this is not the worst Metroid game. It has its flaws, but overall my biggest gripe is that I just can't find the time to play it.

Predators and Inception

2010-07-19T11:52:00.003-05:00

We saw an unlikely combination of movies this weekend, Predators and Inception. Both were great, though obviously very different.

Predators
Predators was awesome. Sullivan spent most of the second period in the penalty box, but he scored three goals in the third. Wait, wrong Predators.

Predators the movie. Right. Well, after the AvP movies, I really wasn't expecting much when I heard they were making a new Predator movie. I knew I'd see it eventually, but I could wait until DVD. Then it actually started getting good reviews, at least in my circle. I'm sure the professional movie critics are blasting it, but they never like the same kinds of films I like anyway.

This is arguably the first good movie of the Predator series. Now, before you start booing me, hear me out. I've always loved the Predator series. I love the creature design, the technology, and the general idea of these creatures that kill us for sport. Alien invasions shouldn't always be about world domination; there has to be other reasons a hostile being might visit a planet.

But, the individual movies themselves... eh, I'm just not as into them as I thought I was. I used to own 1 & 2 on VHS, but rarely watched them. I currently own both of them on DVD, but those discs have never even made it to the player. I just like the idea of them more than the movies themselves. The first Predator was a little too manly for my tastes. The sequel was okay, but very much a sequel for sequel's sake. You know, just more of the same for those who wanted the first movie to be longer. And of course, the AvP movies were fun, mindless action flicks for those who just wanting to see a little blood on a Friday night.

The new movie is similar to the original. They're in a jungle again, and you know the drill from the beginning - they're all going to get killed one by one until someone faces the final boss. However, this is the first one of the series to actually have some decent acting, and a good script.

I think my favorite part is how the movie begins. They could have started with one of the character's backstory on Earth, and shown what he was doing before he was abducted, and so on. But come on, this is a movie for Predator fans! We don't care about exposition, we want to be dropped right into the action.

Okay, make no mistake, it's not Shakespeare. But if I want a good story, I'll wait for the DVD. In the theaters, I want to go on a ride.

Inception
You know how sometimes you're watching a movie, and an entire scene turns out to have been just a dream? Then a bit later, the waking world turns out to be a dream as well? And then, it turns out that you weren't even at the theater today, and you just dreamed you were watching a movie? But after you wake up from that dream, you realize that your entire life has all been just a dream? Inception is kind of like that, except you're also drunk.

Lest you think I'm being negative, it's a rather pleasant sort of drunk, the kind where you lose your inhibitions just enough that you actually experience some sort of clarity (or think you do), and you actually sound smarter to those around you.

I really can't go into the plot without giving away too much, and I'd seriously recommend you avoid reading too many reviews before you see it. Heck, don't even read the review I linked to above. It's one of those plots where the less you know going in, the more you'll enjoy the show. Believe me, it's worth your money, and you don't need to know why first.

You will experience a bit of Fridge Logic when you get home, and the movie's technology is of the "it works because it works" variety. But you'll be too busy counting layers and keeping track of who's mind is doing what to really care about the science.

Go see it.

Coming Soon: Parody Movie

2010-07-09T23:21:00.009-05:00

The original Airplane! is one of the greatest films of all time. As a parody movie, they just don't get any funnier. Not only is the humor clever (if silly), but they cram in a whole lot of it. Almost every scene is worth at least a chuckle. Even if the actors are having a serious conversation, there's always something going on the the background, or at least a funny sign on the wall.

How brilliant is it? Consider this: A large number of viewers don't even realize that the movie is almost a scene-by-scene parody of a movie called "Zero Hour!". They know it's based on some old airplane-related movies, but a lot of Airplane! fans never saw the specific film it spends most of the time mocking.

Yes, Airplane! would be even funnier to someone who's seen Zero Hour!, and actually got all the references they were making. But the humor in Airplane! is so well-done, you don't even need to have seen the source material to get a laugh. How many of Scary Movie's jokes would have still been funny to those who hadn't seen Scream? Hell, how many of Scary Movie's jokes were as funny as Airplane!, even to those who had seen Scream?

After Airplane!, there were very few movies that captured the same magic. Airplane II: The Sequel was almost as perfect, but to be fair, it did use a lot of the same jokes as the original. Top Secret! was also quite good, and remains one of my favorite parody movies. I enjoyed the original Police Squad! TV series, but the Naked Gun movies weren't quite as funny to me. I also like the first Hot Shots! movie a great deal.

But as time goes on, these parody movies just get less and less funny. The "____ Movie" series has its moments, but overall I can't recommend a single one. Instead of gag-a-minute, they seem to go for gag-every-five-minutes (then stretch it out for another 8), and half of those gags are cheap toilet humor. I'm not offended; it's just not funny. (I might not find it funny because I'm not offended, if that makes sense.) That kind of humor is just too easy, and it does nothing for me.

And now we have Vampires Suck:

Argh! I'm not one of those whiny internet critics who cries when Hollywood makes a movie they don't like. I don't mind the existence of bad movies, because usually I can just skip them. But this one annoys me because I want to see it! Granted, there's no shortage of Twilight parodies already out there, and this doesn't even look like one of the better ones. But I like the Twilight series just enough to want to see it parodied as often as possible. I just wish it would be clever! But it won't. But I'll see it anyway. Ugh.

EDIT: Here's a pretty good Cracked article on the subject of bad parodies.

The Twilight Saga: Eclipse

2010-07-07T20:10:00.003-05:00

I'll skip the usual "abusive relationship" rant. You know, Edward's too controlling, Bella co-dependent, it's anti-feminist, yada yada yada. All the stuff that's a little more forgivable the way it's explained in the books, but even then isn't very healthy. Meh... I agree with a lot of it, but it's all been said, all over the internet. Let's just talk about the movie itself.

A full review would be useless at this point in the series. If you liked the first one enough to see the second one, then you're probably committed to the series. This property is such a "love it or hate it" sort of thing, that my opinion isn't going to persuade anyone.

That said, I didn't really care for it. It had some decent action scenes, and a few funny moments here and there. But... where do I begin? The acting was terrible, most of the dialogue was bland, the historical flashbacks weren't convincing, there were bits of my arch-nemesis the shaky-cam, and it was still 90% shallow angst and hard-to-swallow romance. Oh, and lots of posing: "Hey, let's all stand perfectly still and stare into the woods, it'll look great on a thermos later."

Also, the lighting was bad. Actually, no, the lighting was too good. There were a couple of scenes where it didn't look even remotely overcast, yet Edward was outside in front of muggles, sans sparkle.

I'm not sold on they way they showed vampires getting smashed during the fight scenes, like they were made out of marble. I know the books always described the vamps as being hard like stone, but on film it looked sort of silly. I realize that the good guys were hitting them incredibly hard to make them shatter like that, and it's supposed to make them look even tougher, but it actually made them look kind of fragile. Like if Edward were to fall down the stairs, he would break into a million sparkly pieces.

Anyway, I'm not a Twihard, and I'm not the movie's target demographic. So it's no surprise that I didn't really like it. The action scenes were nice, in fact they were my favorite scenes in the series so far. But everything else was just boring.

However...

To be honest, Twilight-haters are actually annoying me more than the Twilight Saga at the moment. Seriously, don't these people get tired of saying the same things over and over? Not to mention all the critics who obviously only watched the trailers, and the nit-pickers who must have missed large amounts of dialogue. "I hate how Edward is so rude to Bella when he first meets her!" Well, if you'd read the books or at least listened to the dialogue, you'd know why.

I read all four books, telling myself the entire time that I was only reading it so that I'd have ammo to insult it later. But to be honest, I really didn't have a bad time. It's not great, and I don't see how it got to be so popular, but it's not the unreadable rubbish people think it is. And I still respect the opinion of those who love it.

"Oh no! This series that I don't plan to watch or read isn't very good! Since not being into something popular makes me feel stupid, the only way I can cope is to convince other people not to like it! Waah!" Seriously dudes, you need to accept that different people like different things, and that's okay. Repeat after me: "I don't particularly care for (insert name of movie, tv show, sport, video game system, web browser, font, religion, or sexual position), but that doesn't mean it sucks. It just means that it's not for me. I'll let other people enjoy it if they want to."

So... yeah, I think I'll alienate both sides today.

I guess I should be glad that Hollywood finally gave these uncreative, whiny, pathetic, brain-dead losers something to cry about besides the Star Wars prequels. I ranted earlier about people who complain that remakes are ruining their childhood memories. (My opinion: If your memories are that easy to damage, you might want to see a neurologist. Or just don't watch the remakes.) Well, the same idiots are worried that Meyer's sparkly vampires are somehow going to erase all the previous vampire stories from their minds, or that the popularity of this series means that people will stop making non-sparkly vampire movies. Short answer: Quit worrying and grow up.

But most importantly, there are a lot of very intelligent people who happen to enjoy the Twilight series. They don't take it seriously, and they have noticed the same problems with the series that you like to moan about. But for whatever reason, they still enjoy the story. You probably know more of these people than you think, because they're afraid to admit it. You'll get less ribbing coming out of the closet as a transvestite furry LARPer than as an adult Twilight fan. So keep that in mind: when you go off on Twilight, you are insulting your friends. Keep it up, and you won't have any. (And knowing is half the battle.)

As long as we're on the subject of Twilight, I would like to give a free plug for Rifftrax, the best way to enjoy bad movies (and even some good ones). For those who don't know: Do you remember Mystery Science Theater 3000, the show where a guy and two robots made fun of bad sci-fi movies? Well, those same guys are at it again, except now they're riffing mainstream movies.

Since they can't get the rights for these movies as easily, you just buy the audio track with their comments. Simply play the Rifftrax MP3 while watching the DVD, and follow their instructions to sync them.

Well, one of the best Rifftrax is the one for Twilight. You can watch a sample here. I've watched that Rifftrax several times, and it never gets old. They also have one for New Moon, and I'm sure they'll have one for Eclipse the moment it hits DVD.

Remakes

2010-07-07T20:05:00.006-05:00

I hear this a lot: "What's with all the remakes? Has Hollywood run out of ideas? They're raping my childhood memories!"

I really don't understand why people get so upset about remakes. I guarantee you, they're not going to stop selling the original movie just because a remake comes out. Remakes are not replacements.

Have you ever seen the same play twice, but performed by a different group at a different theater? Did you demand your money back because it wasn't the "real" cast? When you saw Romeo & Juliet, did you demand they resurrect the original actors who performed it in Shakespeare's time?

Personally, I love seeing how different directors & casts handle the same story. I've seen a couple of different productions of "Little Shop of Horrors", and I loved seeing how each one handled the complicated props, especially since they had vastly different budgets. With movies, I love comparing and contrasting the various versions, looking at what choices were made, what they decided to leave out (and theorizing as to why), whether the improved special effects adds to or detracts from the experience, and so on. Yes, some versions will be better than others. I fail to see how that ruins your childhood memories. In my experience, it enhances them. Sure, the Anne Heche version of Psycho was sort of dull and pointless... but it didn't overwrite my memory of the original, and makes me appreciate the old one that much more.

I hear the argument, "that's time they could have spent making an original movie." But do you really think the guy directing the "Fall Guy" movie is doing so because he turned down the next Godfather? I see no evidence that these guys would be cranking out masterpieces if only they weren't wasting their time on remakes. Besides, how often do you see original stories anyway? How many movies have you seen that were really just "Die Hard" but on a boat/plane/space/cave/cabin? Aren't remakes at least more honest?

So I say, bring on the remakes. I want to see a comedy version of Ben Hur. I want to see the cast of Seinfeld perform My Fair Lady. I want to see Star Wars performed in the nude. I want to see a sock puppet version of The Birds. I want to see Jack Black play Atticus Finch. I want to see a version of King Kong performed by chimps, with the only human playing the title role. If I don't like the look of one, I'll skip it, but I won't cry that it got made.

(Okay, I'll admit my examples were tongue-in-cheek. I wouldn't actually pay to see any of those, except possibly the Star Wars one, if only to see how they handle the "disguise themselves as Stormtroopers" scene.)

And I would love it if Hollywood would do the following project: Write one script (one with a lot of room for interpretation), then give it to 10 different directors/casts, and see how the different versions turn out.

My D&D Blog

2010-05-01T12:30:00.000-05:00

I'm moving most of my D&D-related entries over to my Campaign Journals blog. Partly because I know it bores most of my regular readers (*snicker* "regular readers" heh), and partly just so I can have everything in one place.

Stowaway

2009-07-23T11:45:00.001-05:00

For the past few days, a stray kitten has been wandering around the neighborhood. Despite my objections, KJ's fed it a few times, so of course it's been hanging out at our place a lot. No, we're not keeping this one; we're well above our limit already. So if anybody wants a cute little black kitten, we can probably catch it for you.

This morning was interesting. I usually leave for work at 10:30 AM. We knew they were repaving our road this week, but we didn't know which parts would be which day. But Murphy's Law has never been very subtle in my life, so I was hardly surprised when I saw the paving truck pass my driveway at 10:28. I drove to the end of my driveway anyway, rolled down my window, and asked the workers how long it would be. They said it would be safe in about five minutes. No problem, I'm usually 10 minutes early to work anyway.

While I sat there, KJ came outside to talk to me (well, to make fun of me), and we heard a meowing. KJ thought it sounded like the meowing was coming from the truck. We searched the truck all over, as well as the surrounding bushes, and we finally found it in the spare tire underneath the truck. I couldn't get my hand in there, and I didn't really have the time to detach the tire from the truck. We tried to coax it out with tuna, but that didn't work, so we had to spray it with a water pistol. That worked. Within seconds, there was a little black blur darting across our lawn.

By that time the paving had dried enough for me to cross, and I still got to work a couple of minutes early. I hate to think what would have happened if the pavers hadn't stopped me, though. She might have stayed in the tire the whole way, crawling out later to find herself in a brand new neighborhood. But I think it's more likely she would have gotten scared and jumped out on the way. So the pavers might have saved her life. Hopefully she won't get run over by the paving truck later today.

Tranformers: Revenge of the Fallen

2009-07-05T08:20:00.019-05:00

I'm a bit of a snob.

Back in school, I considered myself superior to my classmates, because I thought my tastes were more refined. Okay, granted, my favorite movie was "Aliens", which is by no means an art film. But the fact that I could enjoy plays, musicals, and explosion-free movies, made me think that I was better than other people. I often thought of myself as Diane Chambers from Cheers, the only cultured person in a room full of lowbrow drunks. It wasn't until years later that I realized just how annoying that Diane character was, and that "pretentious" is a bad thing.

But everyone's tastes change when they get older. Some of my formerly-lowbrow friends finally got girlfriends/wives, and amazingly started to enjoy romantic comedies. Or if not enjoy, at least tolerate. Rom-coms are not exactly Shakespeare, but at least it's a step up from only watching action films. Well, a step sideways... either way, it's a broadening of horizons.

Meanwhile my own tastes may be heading in the opposite direction. I still love plays, musicals, and explosion-free movies, but I don't need to pay big bucks for them. I'm happy watching my rom-coms on DVD. But on the big screen, I want explosions. That's the only reason to pay the increasingly outrageous theater prices. I want big special effects, giant monsters, space battles, and plots that defy logic. I want the director to build a gigantic technocratic post-apocolyptic city using nothing but CGI and Blade Runner references... then I want him to destroy it with a cybernetically-enhanced radioactively-mutated Cloverfield-esque psycho-monster.

I'm not sitting there to think. I do enough of that at home. When I pop in a DVD, I have a pause button I can freely use when I want to consider the ramifications of what was just said. If I want a deeper plot, I'll read a book. But in the theater I want to see things too big to fit on a home television. In that respect, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is pure win.

I went in to this movie with the knowledge that everyone was blasting it to pieces. Roger Ebert called it "a horrible experience of unbearable length." Well, of course Ebert only likes classy films, right? Except of course he liked the first one. A reviewer from the Bilerico Project (a LGBTQ group) walked out halfway, calling it "Homophobia in Disguise."

Maybe the bad press helped. Maybe it lowered my standards so I didn't expect too much from the movie. I do remember telling KJ a few times going in, "Now this is probably going to suck, so just enjoy the eye candy." But I think I would have liked this anyway.

Transformers: RotF is a fun movie. Now that I've seen it, I agree with everything bad that was said about it. It is too long. It does have touches of racism, sexism, and homophobia. It has a terrible script and some horrible acting. It does not deserve to win any awards.

Why can't more reviewers learn the difference between good and entertaining? I mean, The Exorcist is a wonderful movie. It's wonderfully written, perfectly acted, well-directed, the whole package. It deserves every accolade it's ever received. I'm glad I saw it... in a way, I feel like I'm a better person for having seen it. However, I would rather shave my head with a cheese grater than sit through it again.

I like a lot of good movies, and I like a lot of bad movies. But the most important factor to me is the entertainment factor. The worst thing a movie can do is bore me. A bad script is still interesting if it's really bad. Bad acting can be laughed at. But a boring movie can not be saved, even if it's a masterpiece in every other way.

Anyway, T:RotF is pure Michael Bay, a statement which will immediately either draw you in or send you fleeing. It's filled with slow motion explosions, rock-em sock-em robots, and lots of eye candy. A good portion of it feels more like a tech demo than a movie. It keeps your eyes busy; even when Transformers are just standing around talking, the camera keeps rotating around them just to show off the SFX.

Like the first film, the few minutes of human interactions involve embarrassing parental moments and crude humor, like replacing the first movie's masturbation jokes with humping dogs. They kept a lot of the T1's human cast, even in places where it doesn't make a lot of sense. I mean, does everything happen to the same set of soldiers? Are these same soldiers always the closest ones to whatever is happening in the world? And bringing back John Turturro's character was both contrived and pointless, considering that he was one of the things dragging down the first movie.

Now, the offensive stuff... If you recall, the first Transformers had a few silly stereotypes in there, but spread out through the movie's many characters. Most notable was the over-the-top black kid whose dialogue felt like it was written by a staff of white guys trying to talk street. But other elements were there; the foreign phone operator, the Jive-talking Autobot Jazz, etc. One or two references don't bother me. If you have five African-Americans in a movie, and one of them talks like the "Jive Dudes" from Airplane!, it just means that the character happens to talk like that. But when all non-white characters in a movie perpetuate stereotypes, it seems like the director is a racist.

T2 manages to get it out of its system by wrapping up most of the movie's potential offensive elements into a pair of characters. Mudflap and Skids, collectively known as the Twins. They are silly/stupid gagbots, the kind of comic relief I always hate. Why so many writers think every script needs a Jar Jar, I'll never know. The writers do this to make it more entertaining to little kids, but even when I was a little kid I hated all the Orkos and Snarfs and T-Bobs in my favorite cartoons. But the Twins aren't just stupid klutzes like Jar Jar, they also go out of their way to be offensive in as many ways as possible.

But that's okay, because the movie establishes pretty quickly that the characters are stupid jerks. I don't mind if a stupid jerk is also shown to be a homophobe (for example), because that's like the director saying, "See? Homophobes are idiots." Not to apologize for these characters, but I do think the Bilerico Project article took it too hard. The reviewer complains about the use of "pussy" as a pejorative (sexist), and one of the twins taunting a guy with "you gonna go cry to your boyfriend?" (homophobic).

Both are things I do wish people wouldn't say. Accusing someone of being gay is no longer a relevant insult, because society should be trying to reach the point where being gay is no longer something to be embarrassed about. And calling someone a "pussy" as a synonym for wimp is blatantly sexist, and the insult needs to die right now. But in my experience, both insults seem to come more out of ignorance than malice. See Hanlon's Razor.

Labelling an entire movie as homophobic or racist, just because an idiot says something idiotic? That's going too far. The Twins may technically be "good guys", but they're definitely not good people (er... bots). I'll never understand why people get offended when bad people do bad things in movies. If James Bond nemesis Blofeld were to fire missles across Europe, killing millions of people, the audience would say, "Get him, James!" and keep watching on the edge of their seats. But if Blofeld were to use the "N word", people would picket the movie.

Not that the Twins are the only potentially offensive things in the movie (referring to former Oompa Loompa Deep Roy as a "munchkin" comes to mind), but they do manage to consolidate a lot of potential hatred into one place. Some will accuse the Twins themselves of being racial stereotypes, which is bad, but I don't really see it. They do talk some street, but they also talk some redneck, and overall they're like a conglomeration of idiots from all over the place. Think Jar Jar meets Eminem meets Larry the Cable Guy. In any event, they're dumb but forgivable, pretty much like the rest of the movie.

I probably will not buy this one on DVD, at least not until we have a bigger TV. This movie begs for big screens and insane sound systems. Without that, it's would be like watching roller coaster footage. Not totally un-fun, but it just makes you long for the real thing.

To sum up:
From a quality standpoint, that which you would call a "good movie", I give Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen one out of five stars. From a "totally kick-ass good time" standpoint, I give it four out of five stars. It's up to you which is more important.

Now, bring on GI Joe. It looks even worse, so you know it's going to rock.

Why Is This So Popular?

2009-06-16T11:58:00.002-05:00

And excerpt from "New Moon", second book of the Twilight series (spoilers):

Bella (the vapid twit who has set feminism back 30 years) and Jacob (the Native American werewolf with anger management issues) are being angsty in the kitchen. The phone rings. Jacob answers, even though it's Bella's house and she's just as close to the phone. But it advances the plot better when Jacob answers. It's Edward Cullen (the hearthrob vampire who inspires lust in all teenage girls, despite never doing anything even remotely romantic). However, for some strange reason Jacob believes it is Doctor Carlisle Cullen (Edward's sort-of vampire father), a misunderstanding which furthers the plot. Edward, who is afraid Bella might be dead (a misunderstanding which furthers the plot), asks to speak to Bella's father. Jacob answers, "He's at the funeral" (referring to a different funeral). Edward takes this to mean Bella's funeral, which confirms his belief that Bella is dead (a misunderstanding which furthers the plot). Afterwards, Janet and Chrissy (a pair of unicorns) help Jack (a leprechaun) pretend to be gay so he isn't evicted by Mr. Furley (a zombie), after getting locked in a freezer because of a misunderstanding.

Metroid Geek

2009-05-31T22:05:00.013-05:00

Huzzah! In a couple of months, they're releasing "Metroid Prime Trilogy" for the Wii! All three MP games, on one disc, updated with Wii controls! I'm a huge fan of the Metroid series, but I never owned a Gamecube, so I missed the first two MP games. Yes, I know the Wii can play GC games, but I'm glad I waited anyway, because I love MP3's control scheme.

The original Metroid for the 8-bit NES was one of my first true loves. The first thing I ever heard about the game was the ending. Um... spoiler alert... the main character turns out to be a woman. That would have been enough to sell me in itself - I always like female leads, and Mulan-type plot devices. But then the game threw in dozens of other cool features. You have a cannon for an arm. You can turn into a ball. Exploration. Multiple weapons. Sci-fi setting. I simply had to own the game.

I remember being very into the game's plot. Now, we're talking about a time when some games actually did have well-developed plots, but those plots were only told through the instruction manual. With Metroid, there's a paragraph of text in the opening splash screen, and another paragraph when you beat it. Everything else is up to you to figure out. But the manual had several pages worth of exposition, explaining where the Metroids came from, and why Samus was hired to defeat the pirates. I won't lie, it was fairly cheesy. But I liked it so much at the time that drew my own comic books based on it.

*old geezer mode* Kids these days just don't know how easy they have it. I don't know why they even keep printing those gall-darn instruction booklets, nobody reads them any more. Nowadays the plot is laid out in front of you as you play, and even the controls are taught to you one button at a time in the annoying tutorial mode. Why, the first time I played "The Legend of Zelda", I didn't know who Zelda was, what I was looking for, or how to bomb rocks to find secret entrances. And I didn't have no newfangled internet to look it up, either. I had to make do with my intellect, perseverance, intuition, patience, skills, and several hundred dollars worth of Nintendo Power magazines and strategy guides.

Another thing I liked about Metroid's plot was that it reminded me of the Alien movies. (There's a pretty good comparison at this site.) Alien has long been my favorite horror movie, and Aliens my favorite action flick, and of course they never made an Alien 3... seriously, they didn't... don't make me get the hammer... *ahem* Where was I? Okay, so cosmic jellyfish aren't anything like the creations of HR Giger, but there were a few plot similarities that I found entertaining at the time.

It was also one of the first games I played where the sequels formed a coherent storyline. Okay, there was the issue of, "Why doesn't Samus still have all the weapons she gained in the last game?" But I really enjoyed how the first game's ending led to Samus Aran's Metroid extinction mission in the second game, and how the one surviving Metroid at the end of Metroid II set up the plot for Super Metroid. The three make up a perfect trilogy, and any games after that are just a bonus.

Compare to Zelda - the second game was clearly a direct sequel, but what was with the third? The SNES Zelda was an incredible game, but when did it take place? Was it a sequel or a prequel or a remake? There are dozens of Zelda games now, and some of them are sequels to each other, but it seems like they reboot the franchise every third game or so. I hate it when the sequels screw up continuity like that. Like in Tetris - the pieces used to be called Tetrads, but now they're called Tetrominos. I mean, I can't even keep up with the storyline any more. Did the L-piece survive the war? Did the square-shaped piece ever avenge his father's death? For a while there was even a rumor that the straight piece wasn't really straight, but who can keep track any more?

...but anyway...

My take on the Metroid series, in not-quite chronological order:

Metroid (NES) - The game that started it all was really impressive back when it was released. It practically invented a lot of elements that are still being used in games today. It was one of the first side-scrollers to feature exploration instead of just moving to the right. It was one of the first console games made with the intention of NOT beating it in one sitting, instead giving you a password feature for continuing. The idea of a woman in a power-armor spacesuit with arm-cannon... well, the concept screams "Anime", but this was before Japanese animation was really flooding the States, so to me it was a brand new concept. Really, just having a female protagaonist was pretty new to me. Samus is by no means the first female game character, but she was one the earliest female video game badasses. (And I strongly suspect that Ms Pac-Man was actually Pac-Man in drag.)

However, the game itself hasn't really aged well. I love classic side-scrollers, but for me things really took off around 16-bit. I very much appreciate this game for starting the beloved series, but I will probably never play it again without updated graphics. I hate to say it, but the game's universe is better than the game itself. It's fairly damning to admit that I'd rather re-read the instruction booklet than to play the game.

Metroid II (Gameboy) - In many ways better than the first game, but I wish it hadn't been on the Gameboy. It had better play control than the first, and even had improved graphics (which is surprising, considering the system). But with the black & white screen, it was hard to navigate. You couldn't always tell what area you were in, making it difficult to know where to go next. This problem was compounded by the lack of visible screen area. Even the updated version for Gameboy Color didn't improve things much.

Super Metroid (SNES) - IMO, the best video game of all time. Spot-on-perfect play control. The best graphics 16-bit had to offer. Lots of areas to explore, tons of weapons and items to find, and most importantly it was FUN. I do have one complaint, however... there was one special move, where you could bounce off of walls, that was too difficult to pull off. It was made worse by the fact that there was one area you could not pass without using this move. With enough tries you will make it, and once you do, you never have to do it again. But it's tedious, and is an unfortunate black mark on what could have been history's only 100% perfect game.

Metroid Fusion (GBA) - This didn't wow me, but it was nice after all this time to play another side-scrolling Metroid game. Regarding graphics and play control, it's probably every bit as good as Super Metroid, but I didn't really care for the set-up. The way it herds you around different sections of the space station make the areas feel too much like levels, giving the whole game a more "video-gamey" feel. The exploration is still there, but it's just a little too controlled. Enjoyable, if forgettable.

Metroid: Zero Mission (GBA) - This did wow me, but only because I'm such a Metroid geek. Zero Mission is a remake of the first Metroid game, but with SNES-style graphics, better play control, and actual exposition. I thought it was a little short, but a lot of handheld games feel too short to me. My only real regret is that with the release of the DSi (which no longer plays GBA games), that Zero Mission is effectively off the market. I hope it turns up again for another system, perhaps as a two-pack with Fusion. Or maybe they could alter the graphics enough to look good on a TV, and release it for Wii's Virtual Console.

Metroid Prime Pinball (DS) - I'm going to pretend this did not happen.

Metroid Prime Hunters (DS) - A beautiful game considering it's on a handheld system, but unfortunately marred by a complicated play control system. The game actually gives you two completely different control setup options, probably because they realized neither one was very good. Hunters is intended to be played online against other players, so the 1-player mode feels tacked on. However, the online mode is rough on beginners, since you will undoubtedly find yourself in a deathmatch against a pro. So you have to play through the bland single player mode just to learn the controls, in the hopes that you won't get creamed quite as quickly in the deathmatches.

Metroid Prime 1 & 2 (Gamecube) - I'll know in a couple of months.

Metroid Prime 3 (Wii) - A truly wonderful game that makes me wish I was still a kid. The controls feel complicated at first, but within 30 minutes you're Samus Aran. Your right hand is your arm cannon, and you use it just like she does. The nunchuck moves you, and the setup works so well, I never again want to play a First-Person Shooter using two joysticks. Even mouse/keyboard pales in comparison. There is simply no FPS control setup that works more intuitively than the Wiimote/Nunchuk combo. It's like your right hand is playing a "Duck Hunt"-style light gun game, while your left hand is exploring 3D worlds. It might take a little more practice for the stubborn, but it really pays off.

That said, Metroid Prime 3 is not a perfect game. It has some long (but creatitively-disguised) load times here and there, and some of the puzzles are too difficult, and sometimes you feel really lost if you get off track. Some of its features are designed for anal-retentive collectors, those who are determined to probe every square inch of the game. (I used to be one of those people.) And, towards the end, it actually features an escort mission. What idiots put that in? Don't they know that gamers got together a couple of years ago and officially declared escort missions to be the worst thing in the history of the universe?

But despite the flaws, it's still an incredible gaming experience. My nostalgic side still prefers Super Metroid, but the games are so different it's apples-and-oranges.

Related games - Metroids also appeared in Kid Icarus (under the name Komayto), while Samus has had cameos in games like Tetris (NES version), Super Mario RPG, and the Smash Bros series. I mention this only to show off my geekiness.

Minor rant, I was a bit disappointed when Nintendo finally settled on a design for Samus Aran's out-of-suit appearance. They'd featured the occasional unhelmeted drawing before, in places like Nintendo Power or the "Captain N" comic books, but it wasn't until much later that they seemed to pick one version and stick with it. What they picked - a blonde bombshell who looks like a Playboy model - is disturbing to me. She looks more like a "Dead Or Alive" fighter than a space bounty hunter. Is this the most creative they could get? Did they have to make her every 15-year-old's sterotypical vision of perfect beauty? Shouldn't she look tougher? Did she even have to be human? At least they could have made her a cyborg. Don't those watermelon-sized bosoms make it difficult to squeeze into that armor?

In the original game's instruction booklet, they say, "...but his true form is shrouded in mystery." Of course this is foreshadowing that she turns out to be female, but couldn't they have played with that a little? Given her a reason to be mysterious? Sure, her second-quest appearance in the original game looked like a normal human, but the sprite didn't have a lot of detail; they still had the leeway to make her more interesting. I don't hate her because she's beautiful. I just wish Nintendo understood she didn't have to be.

But whatever. I still love the series, even if I don't agree with every decision or play every game. It's going to be a long wait till August.

Update: Shortly after posting this blog, I learned of "Metroid: Other M" that was previewed at E3. Looks awesome, and I can't wait to find out more. I am a little worried about the play control, but I'm sure they'll pull it off.

Moderation In All Things

2009-05-20T09:36:00.007-05:00

I am a very middle-of-the-road person. There are very few subjects that I really care passionately about, which is why it seems like I rant about the same things over and over on this blog. I generally distrust people who have strong opinions about anything, because in my experience, the people who are fanatic about something are the ones who haven't thought it through from both sides. So if there's one type of people I truly despise, it's "all-or-nothing" people. Which I have decided to call "AONs." The people who either love something or hate it, with no room for neutrality.

* AONs are the ones who review movies (video games, books, etc) online, and rate everything "Perfect" or "Sucks". Look, IMDB has 10 stars for a reason, people. Not everything can be 1 star or 10 stars. What's worse is when they actually type out their reasons, and between their bad spelling and broken sentences, you can barely make out, "It was a pretty good movie, but the hero wore a shirt I didn't like, so the movie sucked." Heck, poke around Amazon enough, and you'll come across the occasional bad review for seller-related reasons. ("I didn't like this book because I paid for 2-day shipping and it took two weeks to get it.")

So I never believe any perfect review, whether it's perfectly good or perfectly bad. Either direction has me immediately thinking "internet fanboy", and searching for more professional reviews. For example, one friend of mine called "The Day After Tomorrow" a bomb because he doesn't believe in global warming. Now, there are a lot of reasons that it was a bad movie (and a lot of reasons I thought it was fun anyway), and I wouldn't have minded if he'd blasted the movie for it's script, acting, and yes, even the general plot. But the science in the movie (and most movies) is "movie science" that is only relevant in that movie's universe. Hating it for your own personal beliefs is like saying, "I hated Star Wars because I don't believe in lightsabers." My brother hated "Face-Off" because he couldn't swallow the idea of people switching faces. Okay, but you knew that going in. If you didn't want to suspend you disbelief that far, then you should have gone to a different movie. But at least it wasn't the only reason he disliked the movie, and he didn't call it a total bomb based on that one issue.

* AONs are the ones who keep fad diets alive. The ones who say, "I read lettuce is good for you, so I'm going to eat nothing but lettuce for two months." Or "I know salt is bad, so I'm going to completely eliminate salt from my diet" (forgetting that a small amount of salt is required for survival). I'm not a nutritionist - or even in shape - but I firmly believe that a healthy diet is one that doesn't go to extremes. Well, unless you consider "absolutely no cyanide" an extreme.

* AONs are also the ones who say things like, "America: Love it or leave it." I think I've already established how much I hate that attitude, but for those reading my blog for the first time: America was founded on the concept of "power to the people." It was founded by people who were sick of living under the rule of monarchs, where the opinion of the average citizen meant nothing. Now, there are some countries where citizens have less power, and "if you don't like it, leave" is a perfectly valid attitude there (assuming it's a country you can leave). But in America, the rule is supposed to be, "If you don't like a law, work to change it." It's these overly-patriotic morons who should be forced to leave, as they obviously don't really love America if they know so little about her.

These dirtbags also like to say, "If you're not for us, you're against us." Well, I guess if you're so stupidly intolerant that you can't allow someone to have a neutral opinion about something, then I really am against you. But that doesn't mean I'm going to join your opponent's camp either. Can't you just leave some of us alone?

Similar to this is, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem." Seriously? Let's look at that.

Okay, problem: Ants keep getting into your house.

Parts of the problem: You're leaving bread crumbs on your counter. There's a gap under your screen door. The unusual amount of rain has caused ants to seek higher ground.

Parts of the solution: Ant poison/baits. Cleaning the house, and keeping it clean. Sealing all entry points. Adopting a pet anteater.

Things that are neither part of the solution, nor part of the problem: Ear muffs. Wildabeast. France. Boxer shorts. The Star Wars Trilogy. William Henry Harrison. Cufflinks. The GEICO Gecko. Mad Magazine. Marilu Henner. Christmas Tree Ornaments. 12-sided dice. Airplanes. That rainbow-wigged "John 3:16" guy. Earlobes. Doonesbury. Communists. C3P0. Bluetooth headsets. Winged monkeys. Rick Astley. Uri Geller. The Korean War. That episode of Friends where they switch apartments. Cowboy Bebop. MySpace. Barney Rubble. Barney Fife. Barney the purple dinosaur. The Monkees. Henna tattoos. Street Fighter II. Frankenstein. The Brady Bunch. Wi-Fi. Tennis. Velociraptors. Bruce Campbell. Captain America. Nude bungee jumping. The Atari 2600. Daleks. Analog watches. Danny Elfman. Velcro shoes. Drow. Plush animals. Gay marriage. White water rafting. A partridge in a pear tree.

Clearly, there are some things/people that are not part of the solution or the problem. If you're having so much trouble identifying neutral things, then perhaps you're part of the problem.

* AONs are also the ones who are hopelessly devoted to their boyfriends/girlfriends right up until the day they completely hate them. What is the deal with that? You know two people for years, maybe even before they got together. You know damn well they're both great people. But when they break up, they each become villains in the other's eyes. And of course, you're stuck taking sides, because obviously to sympathize with one brings ire from the other.

I don't play that game. Unless I already strongly disliked one of them, I simply won't take sides.

Don't you have a setting between love and hate? Can't you just realize that you're both still good people, who just happen to be incompatible mates? Why make things worse for both of you by demonizing the other? Why? Well, because as a human being, it's in your egotistical nature to think, "I'm perfect, so if someone can't get along with me, they must be evil." I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way. You can both be perfect and still be wrong for each other. Quit it, you're making your friends uncomfortable. Try to remember what you first liked about them, and use that as a basis for a friendship. That doesn't mean you still have to go out for pizza together, but it would be nice if you could at least find a way to be in the same room together without fighting.

I'm not saying there aren't evil people out there. Duh. If it turns out one of the breaker-uppers had been beating the other, then of course I would be first in line to take the victim's side. But in most cases I let these things work themselves out. I'm not going to risk fueling a friend's hatred, agreeing with all their insults, only to have an awkward backfire scenario when they inexplicably get back together. I'll be glad to play sympathetic ear for either side, but I refuse to get in the middle. And if you play the "It's them or me" card, I'm choosing them. Because a real friend wouldn't ask me to choose, and therefore you've chosen for me.

Granted, I'm not as angry about the break-up thing as I am about other AON people. I realize that people are emotional creatures, and therefore I can forgive some stupidity during stressful times. But I still refuse to take sides.

* People call me indecisive, and I'm still debating on whether they're right. I'm pretty sure I'm leaning towards maybe. In a way I'm an AON myself, but instead of choosing side A or B, I take my neutrality to the silliest of extremes. Despite my earlier implication, there's really nothing wrong with having a solid opinion. A solid opinion is still a comfortable distance away from a fanatical dogma, and as long you recognize others' rights to their opinions, you're probably doing well.

The bottom line is, don't be afraid of neutrality. Instead of defining yourself by how close you are to the left or the right, try considering how far you are from the middle. There is nothing in this world so perfect that it has to be the only thing. You don't always have to choose between leader or follower, and not everyone can be classified as hunter or prey. While it's fun to root for your favorite football team, it's not traitorous to cheer when the other team makes a fantastic play. Some movies are "fairly decent", and some are "merely okay." There is no one food nutritionally complete enough to fulfill your entire diet. There are two sides to every story, and there can be good people on both sides of a war. It's not wrong to be secure in your beliefs, but you must re-examine them now and then or else you're believing it because that's what you've always believed, and that's never a good reason to believe something, believe me.

I think.

Star Trek Origins: Enterprise

2009-05-10T10:42:00.003-05:00

(a.k.a. Lens Flare: The Motion Picture)

This weekend KJ and I saw Star Trek, and we both loved it.

As much as I love nearly all versions of Star Trek, I agree with J. J. Abrams that it was greatly in need of a reboot. But given the nature of Star Trek fans, I was afraid that such an endeavor would be doomed to failure. No, not because it was an odd-numbered Star Trek film (besides, this is zero, not eleven). It's just that sci-fi fanboys love to hate things... I've often said that the difference between a sci-fi fan and a regular person is that the regular person enjoys sci-fi.

The worst is that continuity-obsessed Trekkies insist on incorporating the silliness of the 60's series with the more modern productions. Look, nothing against the original series. It was ground-breaking and ahead of its time. But for me, Star Trek started with Next Gen. When the last TV series, "Enterprise" hit the air, gazillions of fans were livid, because they felt it screwed up the original series continuity. They were wrong, of course, for three reasons:

1. The show made great efforts to explain continuity. Especially in the final season, where they even explained the Klingon head-bumps thing.

2. The Original Series, revolutionary though it was, was full of continuity errors of its own. Not their fault, they just didn't know it was going to take off, so they didn't bother keeping track of everything. But in any event, I prefer to think of the OS as a retelling of events, like a holodeck recreation based on the captain's logs, rather than a perfect video of the story.

3. Enterprise takes place first, so anything it says takes precedence over the original series. It's also 1000 times better, so again it takes precedence over the original series. So if there's any continuity discrepencies between the two, Enterprise automatically wins, and the OS can suck it. My blog, my logic, so there.

I loved Enterprise (well, except for the Xindi season), so it pisses me off to no end that people who consider themselves Trekkies wouldn't even give it a chance. I feel a bit vindicated by the fact that there's an Enterprise reference in the new movie.

So some people will hate the new Star Trek movie no matter what, but I think it will please everyone who is actually capable of being pleased. I'll try to say this without spoilers, but they managed to both break continuity while maintaining continuity, in a way that should please both newcomers and life-long Trekkers. KJ, who knows the Original Series much better than I do, spent the first half of the movie counting the "mistakes" where it didn't agree with the 60's. But thanks to a bit of time-travel and its butterfly effect, every difference is explainable. At the end - okay, I can't avoid spoilers - it's a given that the entire TV series would have been affected in subtle ways... I can't wait to re-watch the DVDs and see if anything's changed. ;)

The casting is spot-on. My favorite was Simon Pegg as Scotty, though I wish he'd had more screen time.

Well, there was a bit of unevenness, IMO, in that some of the players seemed to be trying new takes on their characters, while others were trying to emulate the originals as much as possible, almost to the point of parody. For example, McCoy sometimes seemed like the actor was doing a comedic impression of the original character, while Sulu didn't even attempt to lower his voice. There were a few times when it felt like a bunch of fans playing dress-up for a convention, but most of the time I was able to lose myself in the movie.

I was afraid Kirk would be written as a total badass, someone who can accomplish anything just because he's the goddamn Kirk. But while he does have the "Never give up, never surrender" attitude parodied in Galaxy Quest, he actually gets his ass kicked in most of his fights.

This movie is a bit less family-friendly than previous Treks, but it was time. The squeaky-clean attitude was holding them back, and keeping them from being able to compete with stuff like Battlestar Galactica. To be honest, I've always preferred optimistic futures (like Star Trek) to pessimistic (post-apocalyptic, etc) sci-fi. Mainly because I like to believe that while humankind will always have conflict, overall things will get better and better. Otherwise, what's the point? Shows like the new Battlestar just depress me. But even so, Trek has usually been a little too clean. I think the new movie represents the best balance so far.

I really hope this takes off, and gets lots of sequels. I wish the movie was the pilot for a new TV series, which rewrites the original continuity. But I seriously doubt that's a possibility. Oh well, I'll take this new Trek however I can get it.

Abrams buffs: In addition to the standard Slusho reference, there's also a creature that, while not exactly like the Cloverfield monster, at least looks like it belongs in the same universe. And a question... I've never watched Lost. Is Abrams always so obsessed with lensflare? Every computer, every star, anything with light, makes bright streaks across most of the movie. It's pretty, but it gets a bit distracting after a while.

MyBrute

2009-04-24T09:40:00.004-05:00

This is a cute little game: MyBrute. Very simple, you make a fighter, then watch it fight. You have no control over the battles, but it's still fun to see your fighter win and go up in levels.

You can fight my Brute here.

Fear

2009-04-02T17:25:00.004-05:00

A few weeks ago, I woke up at 5:30 one morning, after a nightmare based on "The Grudge". I was a young Asian woman, living with my family. I believe we were in Japan, though the house itself was based on the one I grew up in. My Asian family in the dream wasn't based on any real set of people, but in the dream I knew who they were and cared for them as if I'd known them all my life. Anyway, the details are vague now, but the girl from the Grudge kept showing up and making family members disappear, until it was just me and my father.

At the end of the dream, my father and I were lying in bed next to each other - nothing incestuous, we were just sleeping in the same bed out of fear. We were talking about the events of the day, and how something we had done earlier (can't remember what, like most dreams, I only really remember the last few minutes) might have put a stop to the ghost. My eyes were closed, and I was holding my father's hand. I squeezed his hand, then squeezed his other hand, and then I felt a third hand. My father was saying something like, "I believe it's finally over," and I replied, "Oh yeah, then who's hand is this?" ...and put the new hand into his.

I opened my eyes, and found myself looking into the eyes of my dead mother (again, not my real life mom, but the Asian mother from my dream) who had been taken by the ghost earlier in the dream. Her eyes were solid black, no irises or pupils. Her face was only inches away. I was looking at her upside down, because she was crawling out of a mirror that was hanging on the wall above the bed.

Anyway, that woke me up. So of course, I spent the next half hour lying there, waiting for my heart to stop hammering so I could fall back asleep, with my ears are perking up at every sound in the house. I could hear a cat scratching on a door somewhere, and another one running up and down the stairs, and both noises corresponded to sounds in my dream. Only at 5:30 in the morning does a cat on the stairs actually sound like an animated corpse, but once you make the association, you can't think of anything else.

It's strange what different people find frightening. At least half the people I've talked to about the Grudge, find the movie more silly than scary. And I can definitely see that. The movie is best when you watch it the right way - lights off, no talking, etc - and even then you have to be in the right frame of mind. But silly or not, that movie has affected me more than any horror movie I can remember. I'm the closer at work, and when I'm making my final rounds, opening the bathroom doors to make sure the lights are off, I see the Grudge ghost looking back at me as the doors close, like the stairwell scene in the movie.

When I was a kid, what scared me was somewhat random. I had nightmares after Poltergeist and Carrie, but I also had difficulty sleeping the first time I saw Ghostbusters. (That thing the librarian turned into, that's what got me.) I was scared of the posters of Freddy Krueger, but only until I actually saw one of the Nightmare movies, and found they were more comedy than horror. That goes for most "slasher" films, really. They might make me jump in surprise when something crashes through a window, but surprise isn't fear. I like slasher movies, but it's hard to say why. They say (whoever "they" are) that there are no taste buds for spicy food, and that the pleasure some people get from hot sauce is actually related to endorphins that are released to counteract the pain the tongue receives from the spices. This is as close as I can get to explaining why I like slasher movies.

In my opinion, most slasher movies are basically remakes of Psycho, which is arguably the only "legitimate" movie in which a woman is stabbed to death in the shower. In a way, slasher movies feel like parodies of Psycho, which may be why I associate them with comedy more than horror. I really can't remember a slasher movie ever giving me a nightmare, but then, I don't consider The Grudge a slasher. Ditto for The Ring, and other similar Japanese-based ghost stories. Sure, they follow the same basic format, at least in the way you watch the cast get smaller and smaller as the movie goes on. But true slashers are gory and in-your-face.

I have a deep appreciation for writers who avoid "brute force" scary (guy with a chainsaw) in favor of "spooky" scary (little girls who crawl out of TV sets). This is why I prefer the Silent Hill series to the Resident Evil games. Sure, I jumped the first time the dog crashed through the window in RE1, but in Silent Hill, the setting alone is enough to make my hair stand on end. It's not that faceless nurses are any scarier than long-tongued Venom rip-offs, but abandoned hospitals with rusty gurneys and burned-out basements are a lot scarier than well-lit mansions.

But then, everyone has different ideas on what's scary. For me, it's like I said above - stuff that's old or abandoned, like a rusty wheelchair on it's side, one wheel still creakily spinning. A dusty old doll - the kind where the eyes open when you pick it up - with one eye stuck closed. Antique medical tools other than knives. For video games, getting to play a character who isn't a well-armed soldier.

And don't get me wrong, I like the RE games, but that doesn't make them scary. Especially as the series goes on, and it's become more and more about the combat, and less and less about unspeakable things crashing through windows. Fun, yes; scary, no. And if it's not going to scare you, why even make it about zombies?

Society as a whole is getting more desensitized to violence, gore, and movie monsters. We're long past being afraid of the wolfman. Vampires are more likely to appear in love stories than horror movies. Frankenstein is more relevant than ever, what with modern knowledge of DNA and such, but the "don't play god" theme plays better in sci-fi than horror (just watch any episode of "The Outer Limits"). And while I like the Japanese horror I mentioned, even I am getting tired of every third movie having a little girl with long bangs crawling jerkily out of things. A big part of it is showing us elements we haven't seen before.

I don't really have any suggestions here. If I could think of some new scary thing, then I'd be out there making movies myself. It's no wonder, really, that everyone falls back on the tried-and-true bloodfests. They make money, they're often cheap to film, and it's a fun way to show off your special effects skills. And I do enjoy watching them, even if I do laugh more than I jump. But on the whole, I'd rather see something new and frightening.

"It's The Next Harry Potter!"

2009-03-15T12:23:00.003-05:00

I finally saw Twilight, but I'm not here to review that. It really wasn't bad enough or good enough for me to care enough to analyze. What I do want to rant on a little is the hype it received when it was hot.

I don't know why this bothers me so much... but...

I hate trendwatchers. Twilight has been called "the next Harry Potter", probably by the same drooling idiots who called Kurt Cobain "the next John Lennon". Frankly, I'm getting sick of every new book being called "the next Harry Potter". Any time a book sells more than three copies lately, somebody labels it "the next Harry Potter." The phrase has very quickly become so overused, that it instantly fills me with rage. They said it about Lemony Snicket - did that really catch on? They said it about Eragon - anybody seen an Eragon T-shirt lately? Bedsheets? Candy bar? No? Why, just the other day I was using my Golden Compass toothbrush while wearing my Spiderwick Chronicles underwear! Seriously, though, none of these are bad properties, and they are perfectly deserving of whatever success they get. But that doesn't mean we'll see conventions and theme parks dedicated to them.

So I wish Twilight a world of success, and I didn't totally hate the movie. I haven't read the books, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume their popularity was well earned. But can we please stop the comparisons? It's apples and oranges. If we're judging it by content, then it should be compared to other vampire stories. But if we're just judging it by success, you might as well call the Nintendo Wii "the next Harry Potter."

IMO, Harry Potter was the next "Chronicles of Narnia" (1950). And Narnia was the next "Wizard of Oz" (1900). See a pattern here? You needn't start looking for "the next Harry Potter" until 2050! Even if you want to call Harry Potter "the next Star Wars", there's still a 20 year gap.

There probably won't be a successor to Harry Potter for a while. Possibly not in your lifetime. Get over it. Get on with your life. Continue to read and enjoy movies, but quit looking for things. Pottermania is the kind of thing that happens unexpectedly, not while you're looking for it, and definitely not when you try to force it. If you try to predict one of these things, I will laugh at you, and I will lose respect for you, and I will steal your car and run over your dog with it.

Moving In

2009-03-12T08:33:00.000-05:00

Note, I'm transferring a lot of my old blog entries from MySpace. If you go to this blog through the main page, you should see my posts in chronological order. But if you are using Google Reader or other such site/program, then my posts might show up in the order I transfered them, which won't make a bit of sense. But from this point on, my posts should show up in a sane order again.

The Cat Burglar

2008-08-21T06:59:00.000-05:00

Warning: Cutesy-Wutesy Kitty Story

KJ has been making pendants out of clay. When working with clay, she wooden tools. When she's not using them, she keeps them in a plastic bag, held together by a rubber band:

She keeps this downstairs, on the living room table. For the past few days, Sybil has been picking up the bag and carrying it around the room. I don't know, it must be a cat thing. We just keep taking it away from her, and putting it back on the table. So this morning, our precious Sybil brings KJ this as a present:

The plastic bag, still held together with the rubber band, minus the tools. She brought it to KJ as a gift, the same way a cat might bring its owner a dead mouse. But where were the tools? We looked all over the house, under every piece of furniture. We were dumbfounded. It seemed like there should have at least been a trail. I can picture her playing with them around the house, and losing them under furniture, as she often does with Q-Tips and milk rings. But there's nine tools in that set, we should have at least been able to find one of them.

In the end, it was Sybil who showed KJ where they were. Upstairs, in the bedroom, under some shoes. And neatly organized, for a cat.

Sybil was a bit protective of them, and didn't want to give them up. She kept complaining about us taking away her toy, and she keeps trying to get at them again.

Hancock

2008-07-23T01:05:00.000-05:00

I'd really rather review the reviewers than the actual movie, if that's okay. Or even if it's not okay - it's my blog, so nyahh!

Dear Tennessean: Next time you don't do your homework, bring a note from your mother.

I read half-a-dozen reviews for this movie, and none of them were very positive. A typical review:
"Hancock starts out as a hilarious anti-hero movie, showing the flipside to the tired comic book formula. Unfortunately, halfway through the movie Hancock finds his morality, and from there it turns into the very type of movie it tried to parody - the standard formulaic super hero movie."

These reviewers are wrong. They're nuts. And worst of all, they're liars - they reviewed the trailer, not the movie. I know this because that's exactly the kind of review I might have written if I'd only watched the trailers. However, this is one of those cases where the actual movie bears very little resemblance to the trailers, which makes the reviewers flat out liars.

Regarding the first half of the movie, the reviewers are fairly close. Granted, they don't say anything you couldn't have found out from the trailers, but they're partly right. The Hancock character is a superhero who isn't very heroic, or rather a drunken slob who just happens to have super powers. There are a lot of gags to be had from this, but for the most part Hancock is just too much of a jerk for the jokes to really be funny. There is a blurry line between grungy anti-hero, and super-villian, but Hancock blatantly crosses it. He could save the world 100 times over, and I'd still want him locked away.

The second half is where the reviewers get it all wrong. From the trailers, I'm sure you thought that Hancock has a magical change of heart, and suddenly becomes sappier-than-Superman, and spends the rest of the movie helping people until he finally saves the world from some evil menace. Apparently the reviewers thought so too, because that's what they wrote. In actuality, it never becomes anything even close to resembling a typical formulaic super hero movie. What it does become is a bit of a mess, something harder to classify. But I will say that rather than fighting a final boss or having to move mountains to save humanity, it becomes more about Hancock's own past catching up with him. Spoiler alert, but how many superhero movies are resolved by having the hero literally run away from his problems (and, where it's actually a noble thing to do)?

It would be one thing if I'd only read people's blogs & message board posts. But a couple of the reviews I read were from actual papers, including my local paper. To be fair, in the case of the Tennessean, it might have been one of those national reviews that the local paper reprints. I've tried to find that paper again to see if that was the case, but it had already been thrown away. But regardless of where the review came from, someone was paid to write it, someone who didn't even bother to see the movie first. I've rarely seen such a clear-cut case of sloppy journalism. Telling people you saw a movie when you actually didn't, is the same as not doing your research on any article.

This is not a case of "I liked the movie, and reviewers didn't, so the reviewers suck." I have a few of those ready (Ask me about Starship Troopers sometime. Or Fantastic Four.), but this isn't one of them. I actually feel about the same way the reviewers did - lukewarm. Hancock is a decent matinee (though we got charged full price for a matinee due to Regal's new policy... but that's another rant altogether). The movie is flawed and uneven, with some cruel humor and some nonsensical plot twists. Some of the character motivations seem forced, as if the writers were so intent on it playing out a certain way, they didn't consider whether a certain character would actually do such a thing. But these flaws are not quite enough to make it a bad movie, and the good stuff makes up for the bad, IMO. Your mileage may vary.

But it doesn't matter that the reviewers and I agreed overall. The point is, that I actually bought a ticket (paying too much, Damn you Regal... *ahem*) and watched the thing, while the other guys got paid to write a review and didn't watch it. Maybe it's because I'm out of Cymbalta, but I think these reviewers should be shot, then fired, then shot again. Personally, I would love getting paid to watch movies and then write about them, and I know several people who would consider it a dream job. Can't these people see how good they have it? I might not be the best writer in the world, but if I were hired, I promise I would actually see the movies I'm paid to see.

Bottom line: Don't trust the reviews. And while we're at it, boycott Regal until they change the matinee times back.

Mario Kart Wii

2008-04-29T11:01:00.000-05:00

I love my Wii, and I love most of the games I've played for it so far. Of course, the best of the best - Wii Sports, Zelda, Metroid, Mario Galaxy, Super Smash Bros Brawl - are the ones made by Nintendo themselves. They're the only ones who really know how to get the most out of their system. So it's no real surprise that Mario Kart is a hit.

But what a hit... I can honestly say that this is the most fun I've had on the Wii so far. Of course the game is fun, it's Mario Kart - they could have repackaged Mario Kart 64 with some updated graphics and I'd have been happy. And to some extent, that's what they did - there's really not a whole lot of new content here. But the overall package is so enjoyable, that I can't complain.

Well, okay, I can complain. There are a few major flaws that would absolutely cripple it, if it were a non-Nintendo title.

For one thing, I hate the way you lose your items whenever you crash, get hit, spin out, get electrocuted, fall, burn, blink, sneeze, or think about cabbage. In the older Mario Kart games, it was a good strategy to hoarde the best items when you get them, and use them at just the right moment. For example, if you fell off the course but you happened to have a mushroom boost on you, then you could get going again in a flash. In MKW, falling off the course makes you lose that mushroom. It's so easy to lose your items in MKW, that the best strategy is to try to use your items as soon as you get them, before somebody hits you with their items.

And you will get hit often. Which brings me to my next complaint - the newest items are just too powerful. And since it's now 12 racers instead of 8, items are getting used constantly. The way MKW is programmed, the player in the lead gets the worst items, and those bringing up the rear get unblockable psycho-uber WMDs. In theory this is a good idea. In the older MK games, if you found yourself in 8th place in the third lap, then there wasn't much chance you'd place above 7th. With MKW, there's always hope. Now you can go from last to first in the final stretch of the last lap, just by getting the right powerup. And everybody targets the guy in front. So now, when you're the kart in first place, you spend most of your time flattened and shrunk, with a storm cloud over your head, a shell on your ass, and a squid in your face. You're almost better off staying in second for most of the race until the finish line is in sight.

Sometimes it bothers me that I'm not feeling the speed. Often I don't feel like I'm moving any faster than you can run in any given Mario game. And with some of the game's gimmicks (the one where you bounce off mushrooms comes to mind), I almost feel like I'm playing something besides a racing game. Maybe Nintendo needs to make a "Wii Fan" peripheral that blows air in your face, depending on how fast you're going.

Unless I'm missing something, there's seems to be no two-player GP mode. That's too bad, because I always enjoyed unlocking the cups with a friend. You can still race other people, both online and off. But without working towards something, those kind of matches feel a little empty to me. MKW has a lot of new characters and vehicles to unlock, but you have to switch to single player to unlock most of them. And when you unlock things, it only unlocks for the player who unlocks them. So KJ and I will each have to master every GP and time trial by ourselves, if we both want all the characters and vehicles. There's a lot of stuff to unlock (14 characters and 18 vehicles, I think), so doing it twice is a pain. And from what I've read, a few of the characters/karts are going to be a downright pain to unlock.

But despite my complaints, most of the time I'm having too much fun to care. I've seen some mixed reviews of MKW so far... Well, most reviewers have loved it, but a few have made the same complaints I mention above. Also, Nintendo has been accused of just going through the motions for this one, and saying that this is actually a step down from the much more innovative "Mario Kart Double Dash" for the Gamecube. I never played MKDD, so I can't really say if that's true. In fact, I haven't played any of them since the N64 version, so I can only see MKW as a huge improvement.

Sidetrack - Should reviewers base their reviews on previous games in the series? After all, if MKW is only a disappointment to those who played Double Dash, then how many people is that, really? The Wii console has probably outsold the Gamecube several times over by now. This question has bothered me for over a decade. When Capcom released "Super Street Fighter II" for the SNES, EGM gave it a bad review because they were tired of Capcom re-releasing the same game over and over, with only a few improvements. While I agree with the sentiment, I think a game should be reviewed based on its own merits. If a game receives a high score, then a few months later they release a version that's the exact same except for a few improvements, how can it get a lower score? That's letting personal politics get in the way of your review. There might be someone out there who didn't buy the previous versions of the game, who is trying to decide between the second or third version. Then they see that the second version got a better score than the third version, and don't realize that the reviewer was just trying to punish the game company with a bad review.

Another example, and one that never fails to piss me off: When a game is released for a couple of systems I don't own, and gets killer reviews. About a year later, it finally comes to the system I do own, and every review I find says, "Well, it's as good as ever, with a few improvements even. But we've already played it on Systems A and B, and we've moved on. We've beaten it so many times that we're bored with it now, so we're giving it a low score." WTF? Not everybody owns all three current consoles. How about a review for those of us who haven't played it yet? I'm a late adopter. I tend to wait for the prices to come down before I buy something. So I don't mind playing games with last year's graphics. Heck, I still regularly play games with last decade's graphics.

Anyway, sidetrack over, back to MKW. The online mode is a lot of fun. It's hard to say what's different, except that real people are a lot less predictable than computer AI. And knocking someone off the track is somehow more fulfilling when you know there's another human at the controls, than when it's just another bot.

The wheel works a lot better than I thought it would. I personally do better with the classic controller, as it's what I'm used to after all these years. But I have played with the wheel, and it's pretty responsive and a lot of fun. KJ does great with it, and it's all she uses. I just might have to buy a second wheel when I get the cash.

So if you have a Wii, and you've enjoyed any of the Mario Kart series in the past, you should pick this one up. It's flawed but fun. I wouldn't buy a Wii just for this game, but I wouldn't buy a Wii without it.

Anyway, if any of you also have a Wii, and want to add me to your friends list and whatnot, here's my Nintendo codes. Like Smash Bros, Mario Kart Wii requires its own code, different from the Wii console's friend code. Remember that I have to add yours as well, or nothing will happen. So if you put in my codes, you also have to send me yours.

Wii Console Friend Code:
7045 1920 7172 8881

Smash Bros Code:
4468 0854 8798

Mario Kart Wii:
Matt 0387-9165-2538
KJ 1504-6091-8383

The Batblog

2008-04-23T03:09:00.000-05:00

There's really no point in making a long blog about The Dark Knight. If you're reading this, you've probably already seen it. If not, you've probably read some of the many glowing reviews of it. If you're on the fence, seriously, see it, you won't regret it. Beyond this sentence, I can't promise there won't be spoilers.

It's very intelligent. Not just "smart for a comic book movie", but smart for any genre. It didn't miss a trick, throwing out ethical questions just as often as explosions. It was a little overlong, but that's my bladder talking. There's not a lot of scenes I would have removed.

The Joker is incredibly well-done. He's morbidly funny, but more importantly, he's crafty and scary. Part clown, part Hannibal Lecter. He is a true psychopath, unpredictable and unremorseful. His machinations are brilliant, making the movie feel more chess-like than most similar attempts I've seen. I can not tell you how much I hate that Heath Ledger died, and how guilty I feel that I'm so glad he finished this movie first, and how selfish I feel for wishing he was still alive for a sequel. It's like saying, "It's okay for most people to die, but not the ones that entertain me." But I didn't know him, and thousands of people die every day, so I can only process his death in the ways that it effects me personally. Still, as much as I admire Ledger's performance, it is copyable. Another actor could do it, with practice. With a thorough enough casting call, they could get another actor to replace Ledger if they're determined to put the Joker in a sequel. It helps that he wore clown makeup for the entire movie.

Two-Face was awesome. Yeah, yeah, the makeup/CGI blend was incredible, yadda yadda, but the writing is the key. He didn't go around pulling two-themed crimes and strapping Batman to giant coins; actually, he didn't have much time to do anything silly. Instead, his tragic tale is told very realistically (given the parameters), and given just the right amount of screen time. Some people were disappointed that his entire story is done as the movie's "B" plot, but I'm glad they did it this way. I don't think Two-Face (at least, post-accident) is a strong enough character to carry a 2.5-hour movie, nor do I think this version of the character had much farther to go. He experiences a tragedy, his mind snaps, and he seeks a quick and violent (though misguided) revenge. A longer movie would have had him become a crime boss, and that's just not what this version of Two-Face was about. His motivations were better served by a quick ending. He probably would have died from infections before too long anyway.

After the realism of the first movie, I was a bit worried that having colorful over-the-top villains would cheapen this one. It doesn't. Though I still don't want them to deluge us with sequels, throwing in every silly animal-themed villian from the Penguin to Killer Croc.

And that's maybe the only problem I have with this series. The movie itself is smarter than the concept. I'm watching the movie and thinking, "Hey, that's a good line... Hey, that's a brilliant plot twist... Hey, that's a deep character... Hey, the hero is dressed like a freaking BAT!" I love Batman, but that is hard to get past. His main schtick is creating an air of superstition around Gotham's underworld, making the bad guys wonder, "Is he real? Is he a man or a monster?" This strategy can only work for the short term. Once Batman gets more exposure - getting caught on film, speaking in public, etc - that part of his career is over. Criminals will no longer be afraid of him, or at least they won't fear him any more than they fear the police. He'd still be an effective detective and prime crime fighter, but at that point he might as well lose the silly ears and wear something more like a ninja costume. Or (*gasp*) become a legitimate detective and fight crime legally!

That's what bothers me about the comics & cartoons. They can start his origin over and over, but any time the same series has lasted long enough to be handled by enough different writers, then eventually the "legend" part dies and he's just another guy in animal jammies. Sooner or later he starts fighting in the day time, working with groups like the Justice League, making television appearances, telling kids not to do drugs, and so on. And that turns him from scary to silly. The comics will have you believe that the Batjet can be seen fighting off an alien invasion alongside Superman and Captain Marvel, as the world watches on TV... then the following week in Batman's own comic, the criminals still fear the mysterious Bat, who may or may not exist, who could be watching them at any time.

So one of the reasons the Dark Knight movie works for me, is that it appears to take place shortly after the first one. Therefore the legend hasn't had a chance to die. If they make a third one, I hope they continue to give it a short timeline. I just can't believe that a fear-based hero would work for very long. In the Dark Knight movie we already see a couple of villains who are no longer intimidated by Batman's song-and-dance, and I have to believe that this familiarity would spread quickly, reducing any fear the criminals have of the Bat.

I would like to see a third movie, but only if they actually have another intelligent story to tell. I don't want them to go into it thinking, "This is a money maker, so we have to hash out something" the way some movies do. I don't know which villian I would want to see. Batman's enemies are too flashy and silly, and while they're great fun, they just don't fit in this movie series. I don't care how serious they make him, nobody is going to fear a crime boss called "The Penguin". The Riddler is just a knock-off of the Joker. Most of Batman's enemies are insane, but we've already done the "Batman fights an insane person" plot. And the ones with super powers like Clayface are right out. First person who suggests King Tut or Egghead gets kicked in the nads.

I wouldn't mind seeing Bane, but only if they do it right. Forget the movie and cartoon versions, and give him the intuitiveness and craftiness he has in the comics. Give him a personality like John Malkovich in Con Air, and don't comically overdo his strength. I want the Bane who was raised by the prison system from birth, the one who figured out Batman's secret identity just by "knowing his enemy", the one who masterminded the Arkham breakout just to make Batman tired. But that's just me. (Edit: I also wouldn't mind Lady Shiva.)

I don't want to see this series turn into another villain-of-the-week battle, the way most superhero movies do. After all, one of the best parts of the Dark Knight movie is that it's not the same plot as Batman Begins. Not to put down other superhero movies; everything has its place. They can make 30 Spider-Man movies for all I care, each one siller than the last, each one the exact same movie with a different bad guy pasted in. I'll still see them all, and have fun doing it. But the Dark Knight isn't about finding flashier enemies and CGI effects. It's about having a great story, and telling it well.

If there is a third movie, I would like an ending that deals a major blow to Gotham's crime problem, thus eliminating the need for Batman. Have Batman retire at the end of the movie, and fade away into legend. Let Bruce Wayne concentrate on corporate means of making the world a better place. Didn't they say that most of Gotham's crime issues come from the corrupt cops? Do you honestly believe Bruce Wayne isn't powerful enough to have these cops removed and replaced with more honest officers? That combination of intelligence and wealth doesn't need a cape & cowl to be scary.

Then... when the time is right... make a fourth movie that takes place 20 or 30 years later, when the Batman is needed again. We could call it something like... "The Dark Knight Comes Back"? No... "The Dark Knight Unretires"? No.... Oh, I don't know, ask Frank Miller.

Jumper / Vantage Point / Cloverfield

2008-03-01T18:00:00.000-06:00

Spoilers abound, so I'll sum up first:
Jumper - Not bad, but not memorable.
Vantage Point - Pretty decent, but it's been done before.
Cloverfield - Awesome, but nausea-inducing.

Jumper:
Nothing memorable - you're not going to go out afterwards and buy the video game - but it's still a pretty good time. Hayden discovers he can teleport. No real scientific explanation is ever given, but random people are discovering they have this power. Sort of like X-Men, except everybody's Nightcrawler. What annoyed me most was the Paladins - a secret society of fanatics who know about the Jumpers, and want to kill them for no particular reason. The motivation of the Paladins was paper-thin - "Because no one should have that much power." - that might be enough to justify a few nutjob vigilantes, but a whole secret society? Plus, the concept that for every secret group, there's another secret group that knows about them. Like the Watchers on Buffy. Or the, uh, Watchers on Highlander. Even Anne Rice's Vampire books have a Watchers-type group.

If you want to see it just to make fun of it, there's plenty of humor potential in the "Anakin Skywalker Vs Mace Windu" theme. Jackson even uses an electric shocker stick that looks sort of lightsabery. Hayden's acting skills have improved some, but he's still not great.

Vantage Point:
This is not the movie I thought it was going to be from the trailers. My Supposition: The president gets shot, investigators find that six people in the crowd had video cameras, the footage is recovered, and the rest of the movie is a dramatic investigation in JFK-style. The Actual Movie: From the TV station's point of view, the President is shot and a bomb goes off. Then the movie rewinds the 23 minutes you've seen so far, and replays the same event from a different character's point of view, this time giving you a bit more insight. Then they do it again. It's the same story six times, from different characters' POVs, each going a bit farther and revealing a bit more of the plot.

Sitting next to me, Bryan kept thinking of that Star Trek episode where the Enterprise keeps blowing up. I kept thinking of Groundhog day, so every time the next segment started, I had to stop myself from singing, "You put your little hand in mine..." And for some reason, I whenever the action rewound to start the next segment, I wanted to say, "Previously on 24"... even though I've never seen 24.

I would call this movie groundbreaking and brilliant, if I hadn't seen the concept done before on various TV shows. I think there's even an episode of the Batman cartoon series that was done this way. And while Vantage Point is a pretty good movie, the gimmick is really all it has going for it. The story isn't very deep or interesting, and if it was shown straight through like a normal movie, it wouldn't have even made it to the theaters.

A pet peeve of mine: The trailer for this movie contains a major spoiler. It shows that the president is actually still alive, even though the movie audience doesn't find out until at least halfway through the movie.

Cloverfield:
This one get summed up as "Blair Witch meets Godzilla", and it's really not much deeper than that. And it's true what they say about the shakiness - if you get nauseous easily, you should definitely take a Dramamine first. Comparing action movies to amusement park rides is cliche, but this time it truly fits. Cloverfield is like one of those roller coasters that really makes you sick, but you ride it anyway because it's worth it. And Cloverfield is definitely worth it. I've seen plenty of "giant monster destroys city" movies, but I've never actually thought they were scary. But seeing it through the victims' eyes really does sell it. Never has a giant monster looked more menacing, because never have I seen a giant monster from this angle.

Some minor nitpicks, because it just wouldn't be me to call a movie perfect: The opening is a bit long. There's some very good reasons for it, and I don't begrudge the director one bit for giving us so much background on the characters. But when this puppy hits DVD, I'm fast-forwarding to the action. Some of the characters show superhuman toughness that can't just be chalked up to adrenaline. And... okay, this is really nitpicky, but... It's two thousand frikkin eight. Is there really anybody out there who has never held a video camera? And even if you've never touched one, are they really that hard to figure out?

Yes, I'm talking about the shakiness. This is the one type of movie where I not only forgive the use of a shakycam, but I even encourage it. But they still overdid it. I understand that when you're being chased by monsters, you're not going to worry about getting good footage. And even when standing still, if you're in a life-or-death situation, you still might have the shakes. But even at the beginning of the movie, when he's just walking around the party, he's shaking it, tilting it in odd ways, zooming badly, and so on. The amateurs on "America's Funniest Home Videos" possessed better camera skills 15 years ago.

But overall, Cloverfield is an awesome movie, and defintely worth a little queasiness. It relies heavily on the "what you don't show is as important as what you do" method of storytelling, and it leaves the audience with a lot of questions - but in a good way. Now I'm hearing rumors of other movies in the works using the same "found footage" format. I hope this doesn't become a genre. Once or twice is innovative, but beyond that it's just annoying.

Three Movies & Six Minutes

2008-01-01T13:41:00.000-06:00

Alien Vs Predator: Requiem
This is the type of bad movie I usually love. Good action, nice gore effects, bad script, bad acting. I had a lot of fun. But there's really not a whole lot to be said about this movie. If you like the AVP universe, it has some nice eye candy. After seeing the Aliens in mostly isolated sci-fi settings, it's pretty surreal to see them running around a modern day city. Spoiler alert (not that this movie has a lot of twists): There's only one Predator in this one, so it's not so much the war scenario we saw in the AVP, and more similar to the hunter scenario of the original Predator movies. And the hybrid Alien/Predator is pretty neat, but the action figure is cooler looking.

Sweeny Todd
According to Wikipedia, the Broadway musical Sweeny Todd opened in 1979. It was based on a 1973 play, which in turn was based on a 19th century legend. Well, I don't care. It was written for Tim Burton. This story fits Burton's style so much, that I can't picture anyone else filming it. KJ and I saw the play about a year ago, and loved every minute of it. However, the movie blows it away... which is not something I would usually say. It's like saying, "The movie was better than the book" - it's just not done, at least not by those who consider themselves intellectual. And I'm sure that we didn't see the best production of Sweeny Todd ever made; it was at a small playhouse with a low budget. But I can't imagine any play being able to capture the mood of Burton's theatrical version.

It's funny, if someone had simply told me, "They're making a movie version of Sweeny Todd", I wouldn't have had any thoughts about the casting. But if someone had told me, "Tim Burton's making a movie version of Sweeny Todd", I would have immediately known: Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter. And they both do fantastic jobs. A warning, the movie is a musical (for those who hate musicals) and it is very, very, very, very bloody. It's an unrealistically bright red blood that artistically offsets the lack of color elsewhere in the movie, but it can still be nausea-inducing for those who don't deal well with gore.

While not my favorite movie of all time, this is one of those few movies I consider "flawless", in that I really can't think of anything I would change.

I Am Legend
Great movie, but I don't think I'll see it again. This is the third movie based on the Richard Matheson novel, but variations of the plot have been used in dozens of other movies. So one way or another, you've probably already seen it. This is one of the better versions of the "last man on Earth fights mutants" story, but it's a little uneven, and I think a lot of the movie will be boring on repeated viewings. Also, the computer effects could have used a little polish. I hear that they decided to use computer-rendered mutants at the last moment (they tried makeup but it didn't look right), and it shows. It wasn't bad enough to pull me out of the movie, but it was bad enough for me to think, "Isn't this 2007?" Overall, I highly recommend the movie, especially if you see it on IMAX, where you'll see...

The Dark Knight preview
As much as I enjoyed "I Am Legend", this six minute preview of the upcoming Batman movie was better. You can find it online if you look hard enough, but seeing it on the IMAX screen was just awesome. It basically shows a bank robbery pulled off by the Joker's gang, with several plot twists already showing how delightfully devious the new Joker is going to be. Based on this preview, I really don't know if they're going to be able to keep the realism that I loved so much in Batman Begins... but I still think this movie is going to rock.

By the way, Happy New Year!

Tell Me All Your Thoughts On Blog

2007-11-25T05:01:00.000-06:00

I haven't been blogging much lately. Truth is, I'm not much of a blogger. I had a lot I wanted to get off my chest early on, and I said it. But now that it's said, I have a harder time coming up with things to write about. Sometimes I'll vent when I'm angry, but I just haven't been angry much lately. And when I have, it's still all things I've written before, so why bother. There's also a zillion other little reasons I haven't written, mostly involving other interests and a general lack of time.

A micro-update on my life: We're out of money, in massive debt, and there will be no Christmas this year. We're quite depressed about the money issues. I've been trying to empty out the attic, to sell some stuff on E-Bay, but there's just not a whole lot we want to part with. No sense selling something that you know you're going to buy again when you have money again. Especially when it's a hard-to-find collector's item.

So, anybody been to the Creationist Museum yet? Here's some pics from one visitor. I really want to visit it sometime, for the same reasons this guy did - just so I can laugh at it. Did you know that all dinosaurs were vegetarians? Yep, even the raptors. See, according to Creationism, all the animals in the Garden of Eden were vegetarians. They had to be, as meat-eating requires killing, and death hadn't been invented yet. When Eve ate the forbidden fruit, part of the punishment was that the Dinosaurs all dropped dead (how this was a punishment, I don't quite get). I'd be interested in knowing how many people consider themselves Creationists, then visit the museum, see what Creationism really means, and change their minds.

I try to be respectful of other people's religions and philosophies. I really do. And I try not to write too many anti-religion blogs, because I don't like reading other people's pro-religion blogs. If I'm going to object to fundies spreading their word everywhere, then it would be hypocritical of me to impose my non-relgion on other people.

But total Christian Fundamentalist Creationism (believing that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, etc) is just so baffling to me. The concept of a "god" is at least scientifically explainable. We're more powerful than other creatures on this planet. Our technology would look like magic to primitive people. So it stands to reason that there could be other people in the universe, technically advanced enough to appear godlike to us. Anyone who's played SimCity knows how much fun it is to build a civilization, and scientists now know how to grow a human from scratch. So I see no compelling reason to dismiss the idea of a Supreme Being.

Every thinking Christian knows, there is nothing anti-religious about belieiving in evolution. Science and religion CAN go hand-in-hand, if you don't take every Biblical word literally. And why should you? It's been translated and retranslated and mistranslated so many times over so many years. Much of the book is written like poetry. Even if every word was directly dictated by God personally (and no one believes that), He would still have been writing it for a more primitive culture, who couldn't understand a lot of the concepts we do today.

How explain to primitive people the concept of microscopic bacteria? It's easier to just say, "Don't eat unclean foods." How do you explain to ancient people the connection between unsafe sex and STDs? It's easier to say, "Save sex for marriage." A lot of what we decided was "moral" was actually just practical ways to keep society (at the time) from falling into chaos.

If the Bible had been written this century, it wouldn't have said, "Don't eat pork", it would have said, "Make sure you cook pork for at least this amount of time, make sure you keep it refrigerated, make sure you don't leave it on the counter, etc." The modern Bible also wouldn't tell us, "Save sex for marriage"; instead it would tell us ways to prevent unwanted pregnancy and disease.

Some religious zealots think that AIDS was invented by God to punish gays and other "sexual deviants". I think they're getting their cause and effect mixed up. Disease was already here, probably a side effect that God just couldn't iron out. Unable to stop the disease itself, God tries various methods of keeping people from spreading it. Reliable condoms hadn't been invented yet, so He had to make rules for human sexual behavior.

Of course, this would mean that God wasn't truly omnipotent. Does it really matter? Personally, I would much rather worship a Creator who had put a lot of work into the universe. Yeah, sure, be thankful that God granted you life, but does that really mean anything when he did it just by snapping His fingers? That cost Him nothing. There's nothing wrong with calling him omnipotent, because His power is so great that we mortals could never conceive of its limits. But that doesn't have to mean He can do absolutely anything. There's even parts of the Bible where God seems to be unable to stop certain events, or is surprised at something that happens (can someone all-knowing ever be surprised?) Worshippers rationalize this by saying, "God works in mysterious ways." I rationalize it by saying, "If there is a Supreme Being, he's not technically omnipotent."

I have been accused of thinking I'm the only one who has life figured out. I promise you, the only thing I know for certain is that I don't know a damn thing. I don't know if there's a god and I don't know if there's an afterlife. So please don't accuse me of looking down on religious people. I really don't. Everyone is entitled to their own philosphy of life. There are a lot of things in the universe that are simply unknown, and probably always will be. People don't like unanswered questions, so they fill those gaps with whatever they can find. The only time I really dislike religion, is when people use the name of their god to justify what I consider to be immoral behavior. And that's what trips people up - what I consider immoral obviously isn't going to be universal law. But I keep my beliefs fairly generic, and follow the ol' medical rule, "First, Do no harm." If you believe that people who are different should have different legal rights, then you are immoral. If you want to take away my rights, simply because you don't believe in my philosophy, religion, race, or sexual orientation, then you are doing harm.

For the most part, I am perceived as a bleeding heart liberal. This is because I believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

By "Life", I mean all human life, and some animal life as well. I get sick of hearing people complain about welfare, by saying crap like, "Why should my tax dollars pay for his liquor" and so on. Yes, some people abuse it, but I challenge you to find any system of anything that people can't abuse. A few flaws doesn't mean a system is bust. A system is defined by the people it helps, and welfare keeps some people from starving to death. If we allow our harsh capitalism to starve people who weren't strong enough to keep up, then we're not really guaranteeing life. I'm not saying give everything away free; in fact, if I were Queen of America, I'd probably do away with a lot of the government aid we already have, even ones I've benefitted from in the past. But for people to overcome the hardships in their life, the first thing they have to do is live.

"Liberty" and "Pursuit of Happiness" may as well be the same thing, in my opinion. Everyone should have the right to do anything they want, provided they aren't harming anyone else. I think most people can agree to that, or at least they think they do... until an issue like gay marriage comes up.

In reference to religion, a while back someone asked me, "What if you're wrong?" I assume the full question to that would be, "What if you're wrong, and there really is a God, and every word of the Bible is true and literal, and the fundies are right, and homosexuals are evil, etc etc etc?" Well, what if?

Once upon a time, I justified my Christian beliefs by figuring that I wasn't losing anything by believing in God, so I might as well do so. If it turned out I was wrong, so what? If there was no God, there'd be just as little an afterlife whether I believed or not. I'm out nothing either way, so might as well believe, rather than risk eternal Hell. Of course, I wasn't the first to come up with this philosophy. I later learned that it's called Pascal's Wager, and there's more info about it here. But to sum up, it looks like this:

Just looking at it, it seems to make a lot of sense. If nothing else, 1B (Hell) is just too great a risk for anyone NOT to become a believer, so if you have nothing to lose, why not believe in God?

But it makes a few illogical assumptions:

1. It assumes that there are no negative repercussions from believing in God. The whole basis of "what have you got to lose" conveniently forgets that a lot of people do live rougher lives because of their religious beliefs. There's closeted homosexuals who never find a fulfilling relationship because they think their sexual orientation is a sin. There's starving people in third-world countries who continue to have children they can't feed, all because Catholic missionaries told them that birth control was evil. There are countries at war because each believes in a different God, which often turns out to be the same God wearing a different hat. There are people missing out on some of the world's greatest literature, because their pastors told them those books were evil. There are people denying their children much-needed medical care, because they believe God is going to heal them. There are people destroying the environment, justifying it with the belief that the events of the Book of Revelation are near.

2. It assumes that one can simply say, "I believe in God" and it'll happen. Can you really force yourself to believe something, all the way to your core? And will that really fool the Supreme Being? There are a lot of things in life that I want to believe, and I would very much like to believe that all the pain in this lifetime will be rewarded in the next one. I'd also very much like to believe that I'll win the lottery. But if wanting something really bad magically made it happen, my life would be a lot different. I'll admit to being a bit nuts, but I'm not nearly crazy enough to believe in a magical man in the clouds. At least not without some sort of proof.

3. "Believing In God" is not so black-and-White. Which God? Which religion? Which denomination? There's a zillion religions out there, and each one has many denominations, sects, and other subsets. Is there any evidence that your religion is the correct one, or do you just go with the ones your parents taught you? Of course there can't be proof, because religions are built on blind faith. But when two rival religions tell you, "You have to believe and have faith without proof", how do you decide which is right? What happens if you pick the wrong one? Some people claim they felt a calling to the right religion, but I'm better at noticing and interpreting my mental rationalizations than some people. Some people experience a euphoria when they first go to church, brought on by the air of excitement in the room, and the attention they get from the other churchgoers, and they interpret that exhillaration as the moment that they were saved by God.

So, to answer the question, "What if you're wrong?", I'd have to say that I can't be wrong. I'm not saying there is no God, I'm just saying that I don't have any compelling reason to choose a religion. I haven't made any claim that I know what happens after you die. I can't be wrong because I haven't actually said anything to be wrong about. All I've said is, "I don't know." And while I may go on from time to time about GLBT rights, I make no guarantees about any potential gods agreeing with me. Of course, I could counter with a thousand counter-questions, most centering around, "What if you picked the wrong God?", but I've tried that before and I rarely get a straight answer.

Oh, I just remembered another reason I don't blog much: I never know how to end them.

The Mist

2007-11-24T03:30:00.000-06:00

I first read The Mist (as a short story in Skeleton Crew) when I was in 7th grade or so, and it's always been my favorite Stephen King story. I've been wanting them to make it into a movie for years, so this movie had a lot to live up to. I'm glad to say that, for the most part, it matched (but didn't exceed) my expectations. The movie plays out on the screen almost exactly as it played out in my head. Even though I haven't re-read the story in a couple of years, I knew who some characters were right away from their first appearance, just by the way they looked. I don't know if that's a compliment to the casting director, or wardrobe, or even King's writing for being so easily interpreted.

The movie follows the book very closely (except for the ending, which I'll get to in a bit). You know, I think the story is the perfect length to make into a movie: they didn't have to cut much out (other than the ending, I can only remember one scene in the book that wasn't in the movie, and I bet it was filmed), and they didn't have to add much in. Even without the story fresh in my mind, I generally knew what was going to happen next. Because the movie is set in a somewhat rural area, even the setting hasn't changed much since the story was written. The movie could easily have taken place 20 years ago, except for one scene where someone uses a cell phone as a flashlight.

Some of the acting is a little flat, and the whole movie has a little bit of a "made for the Sci-Fi Channel" feel to it, but I'm okay with that. I do wish they'd had a slightly bigger budget, as some of the computer FX could have used a little polish. But that's just the jaded FX cynic in me; if this had come out a few years ago, we would have been amazed. A warning to the easily grossed-out: The Mist does contain a few very good gore effects, some of which made me cringe. KJ had to cover her eyes through some of the bloodier moments, and even complained of nausea at one point.

The monster designs are very cool, and the director really understood the spirit of the story - knowing what NOT to show being more important than what to show. This movie is everything I wished the "Silent Hill" movie had been. My favorite thing about the SH video game was how it felt like I was playing through The Mist short story, and now The Mist movie feels like a better film adaptation of the game than the actual SH movie. One thing I didn't like: If I remember correctly, in the book, the characters put forth a lot of theories about what happened up at the military base ("Project Arrowhead") that caused the mist and everything in it. But they're never really certain, and that adds to the mysteriousness of it all. The movie, on the other hand, has a scene that completely spells out what caused the mist. Sometimes it's just cooler to live with the mystery. It's as if someone said that the Force in Star Wars was caused by microscopic bacteria in a Jedi's blood cells. Or if the immortals in Highlander turned out to be space aliens. I mean, really, who would do that?

The ending... Ohhhhh, the ending... I'm not going to spell it out exactly, but if you want to stay spoiler-free, skip this paragraph. In a word, the ending is cruel. It has an ironic "Outer Limits"-style twist, or at least it tries to. Instead it comes off like the punchline to a sick practical joke. Remember that part in the Bible, where God tells Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac, and at the last moment an angel yells out, "April Fool!" (And people say God doesn't have a sense of humor.) Okay, now imagine the same joke if the angel had shown up a few minutes later. "Just kidding! You didn't really have to do that! Here, I'll help you clean up..." I realize the book's ambiguous ending wouldn't have translated well to the big screen, but I can think of a few alternatives that would have worked, IMO.

To sum up, I really enjoyed the movie. My favorite Stephen King short story turns into one of my favorite SK movies. I just hope the DVD has some alternate endings.

The Host

2007-10-23T09:29:00.000-05:00

You've got to see the first half hour of this movie. I swear, for the first thirty-odd minutes, I just knew that this was going to be my favorite monster movie of all time. The creature FX are just so indescribably entertaining. The monster is both funny and scary, and you hardly have to wait at all to see it. First you see the creature like you would in any other movie... off in the distance, then as a shadow under the water, and you think, "This is how I'm going to see the monster for the next hour, until we finally get a full view of the thing right at the end." Um, nope. Shortly after it swims by, it comes running down the sidewalk, in broad daylight. The next twenty minutes are B-movie nirvana.

And then the movie loses momentum. The next hour or so of the movie kind of drags, as it centers on the family of one of the victims. It has a lot of comic relief - it's originally Korean, and sometimes it's hard to tell if the tongue-in-cheek humor is intentional or just bad dubbing - but the humor can only sustain you for so long. Even the monster eventually gets boring, which is why most horror movies keep it hidden until the climax - this movie has no "payoff" scene. I kept hoping that they'd kill it, only to find a larger, weirder monster lurking in the shadows. Spoiler alert: Nope.

Basically, the whole movie feels backwards. It's as if you're watching one of those really slow, suspenseful horror movies, the kind filled with long scenes of exposition followed by quick flashes of monster killing someone, until the big-budget reveal scene right before they kill it. Except, you've decided to watch the ending first.

So rent this one, and rent it now. The opening is worth it. But if you start to get bored, and want to hit the fast-forward button, I promise not to tell anyone.

...Does Whatever An Iron Can...

2007-09-11T11:43:00.000-05:00

Yesterday I saw the trailer for Iron Man. So for the past 24 hours I've had Black Sabbath stuck in my head.

It looks a fun movie, but it is getting a little tiring watching them dredge up every super hero they can think of for a movie. Heck, I was surprised they made Ghost Rider. A lot of these movies are too similar to each other. Really, what was in Daredevil that wasn't already in Batman or Spiderman? What's going to be in Iron Man that wasn't in Superman? Don't get me wrong, I'm definitely going to see it, and I'll probably like it very much. I don't really consider Iron Man the bottom of the barrel, but he's close. I just hope they don't get to Sub-Mariner - that's where I draw the line.

The Borne Redundancy

2007-09-03T17:30:00.000-05:00

We saw The Borne Ultimatum today. To fully appreciate the movie and this review, you need to remember the details of all three movies. To recap:

The Borne Identity - 2002
Amnesia-suffering former assassin Jason Borne seeks to reconcile the events of his past, while government agents try to hunt him down and kill him.

The Borne Supremacy - 2004
Amnesia-suffering former assassin Jason Borne seeks to reconcile the events of his past, while government agents try to hunt him down and kill him.

The Born Ultimatum - 2007
Amnesia-suffering former assassin Jason Borne seeks to reconcile the events of his past, while government agents try to hunt him down and kill him.

Truly, there hasn't been such a wild variety of unexpected plot twists since the Rocky movies. Which is not to say that The Borne Ultimatum is bad, but it sure isn't anything new. If you liked the first two, then you'll like this one... but you might not remember which is which. The Borne Ultimatum is a perfectly adequate action movie. In fact, it's incredibly adequate, mind-bogglingly mediocre, and brain-bendingly bland. In fact, it's so fantastically average, that it would actually have to be worse just to be any better. The movie so unmemorable, that even if every actor had gone through the entire movie in the nude, painted blue, and on fire, I still would have forgotten what I'd just seen by the time I got to my car. And yet, it's still a decent movie. It's just so.... so.... "so-so".

Ben Aff- I mean, Matt Damon (MATT DAMON!!), a.k.a. overrated generic actor No. 235, does his usual adequate job in portraying the untouchable hero devoid of any personality. Since it's obvious they were going for "average" anyway for this series of movies, Damon is probably the best actor they could have gotten. Or "most appropriate" actor, I should say. The words "Damon" and "best actor" should never belong in the same sentence.

By the time I got out of there, I wasn't quite sure if I'd just seen the newest Borne movie, or one of the earlier ones again. It doesn't really matter; they're pretty much interchangeable. Tell someone you're going to show them the Borne trilogy, and you can either show them all three in a row, 1-2-3, or you can get creative and show them 2-3-2 or 3-1-1 or 2-2-2. They won't know the difference. You could probably even put them in one of those 3-DVD disc changers, and have it show scenes from all three in random order, maybe even mixed in with with Good Will Hunting or Saving Private Ryan just for the heck of it. Mix it up, it can only make it better.

An Open Letter To Filmmakers:

Using a hand-held shaky-cam was a nice little gimmick a few decades ago, but it's time to move on. Having the film shot by an epileptic Chihuahua doesn't make the movie any more immersive. It doesn't make the movie edgy or raw or interesting. All it does is make the action scenes harder to follow, and makes your audience nauseous. If you can afford to spend 100 million dollars on a movie, you can spend 50 bucks on a tripod. For Gawd's sake, now that the MPAA rating has gotten so detailed that they include every little offensive thing... "Rated R for Brief Nudity, Pervasive Crude Humor, Light Drug Use, Violence, Language, and a Bad Haircut"... could they not start listing things like "Vomit-inducing shaky-cam"? I find that a lot more offensive than nudity.

Wiiiiiiiiiiiiii!!!! ...and Stuff.

2007-09-02T21:50:00.000-05:00

It's been an interesting wiik. Wii've been having troubles wiith our internet connection since Sunday (a wiik ago today). Every day, our internet has gone out for an hour or two. The cable TV hasn't gone out, so wii don't have a clue what's been causing it. Wii called Comcast a few times, and they gave us their typical newbie solutions (Did you try resetting the modem? Duh. Did you unplug the modem and plug it back in? Double duh. Did you try resetting the router? Duh.) And of course they still try to blame the router (because nothing is ever Comcast's fault), even though wii'd tried bypassing the router and plugging the modem into the computer directly, with no success.

They sent a tech out on Friday to look at it. He fiddled wiith my configuration settings, and declared it fixed. I left for work right as he left, and when I got there, I already had a voice mail from KJ... yep, it was out again. So wii had the tech come back. He gave us a new cable modem.

So this morning I woke up to find our internet out again. Wii called Comcast yet again, and they scheduled a "better" tech to come out this Wednesday (the first two were "basic" troubleshooters, this new guy would have been one of their techmasters). Then, later this afternoon, Comcast calls me back to tell me that there's been an outage in our area all day. So for once, it wasn't just our house (though they could have checked that when wii called this morning).

So wii cancelled the Wiidnesday appointment, whiich is a sure-fire way to guarantii it's going to go out again. Right now, wii're just waiting to sii how long our connection lasts.

Btw, as I mentioned in yesterday's blog: one other thing wii did this wiikend, is wii bought a Nintendo Wii. Whiich miins that now wii both have arm cramps, and I thiink iit's affectiing my spiich.

Seriously, though, I love the new system. If any of you also have one, let me know and we'll trade friend codes. For whatever that does.

Anyway, it's a great system, but it doesn't have a very good library yet. With it we bought Zelda, Metroid, and Wii Play (best way to get a second controller). We especially love the Bowling on Wii Sports, and the Pool on Wii Play, both of which are proof that fun gameplay beats good graphics any day of the week.

What I really don't like is the gimmicky use of the Wii's controls. It's the same speech I keep giving about the overuse of the stylus in DS games: Just because it's there, doesn't mean you have to use it. The wiimote/nunchuck combo actually makes a very natural-feeling controller, and it's much more comfortable than classic gamepads because you can hold your arms apart and rest them however you like. So if a cross-platform game hits the Wii, they really don't need to tack on "shake the controller wildly to punch" functions; it actually makes the game feel less natural.

Which isn't to say I don't like swinging the wiimote around like an idiot. I love it. I love using it like a sword or a gun or what have you. But only if it makes sense in the context of the game. I'm really afraid that the gimmicky-ness is going to mean fewer cross-platform games hitting the system, because of this obligation to use the sensors.

Next gripe... I'm usually the first in line to argue for backwards compatibility. But in this case, I'm really not sure they needed it to play Gamecube games. There's a panel on the system that opens up to reveal four Gamecube controller ports, and another panel that hides a couple of Gamecube memory card slots. Since they were hyping the Wii as the cheapest of the next-gen consoles, surely they could've knocked a couple of bucks off the system if they hadn't included it. Also, the Gamecube wasn't that big a system anyway, at least when you compare it to its peers (PS2 & Xbox). Arguably they would've been better off giving the Wii a cartridge slot for SNES games.

Maybe if they'd left off the Gamecube emulation, they could have used the money to put in a DVD player. Seriously, I'm willing to bet there's more people out there who own DVDs than own Gamecube games. The Wii already uses normal-size discs, as opposed to the Gamecube's minidiscs. And then I wouldn't have to keep my PS2 in the living room along side the Wii just to watch movies. And I wouldn't have had to spend extra money solving the problem of hooking two systems up to my TV.

But anyway. For all that, the Wii is still my favorite of the systems out there. The X-Box 360 and the PS3 are just bigger, better, and prettier versions of what we've already been playing for years and years. I've been getting sort of jaded lately about video games. It just feels like I've played it all before, and most of it wasn't that interesting the first time. Graphics are getting better and better, but that just doesn't make things funner. I still have more fun with the 2D games of the 16-bit era than I do with most of the current stuff.

But that's just me.

Changing gears again...

The night before last I woke up screaming. I dreamed that for some reason, KJ and I were living in my old house on Long Hollow Pike. I don't know if we actually owned it or if we were just guests, but we were staying in the "green room" upstairs, which was a guest room last time I lived there.

I don't remember anything but the end, but I know it wasn't a nightmare until then. It was just a normal dream about us doing normal stuff. I remember I had been reading a Star Wars book, and I only had a couple of pages left. I had to use the bathroom, so I sat down on the toilet in the upstairs hall bathroom and opened my book. In the dream, the shower was to my left (which is the opposite of real life). I was looking at the book's pages, and out of the corner of my eye, I saw my legs. One hairy leg on the right, and one hairy leg on the right. And one more hairy leg on the left, next to mine. I screamed, in the dream and I think in real life.

The leg was sticking out of the shower, bent just like mine but slightly more outstretched, as if the owner was sitting on a chair in the shower. I craned my head around and opened the shower curtain, and my Dad was lying in the shower, dead. I remember his lips were blue-ish. I screamed again.

Then he very slightly started to twitch, and his lips started moving. I screamed until KJ woke me up. That was about 6 AM, and we didn't go back to sleep. On the plus side, there's no line at Pancake Pantry if you go early enough.

Well, I'm off to play some Wii. It's a nice thrii-day wiikend, the best tiime to buy a new system.

Fish & Trips

2007-07-25T01:47:00.000-05:00

Fish & Trips

Saturday morning we got up very early, and drove down to Atlanta. We went to the Georgia Aquarium, which was very cool but very crowded. It is, according to their website, the "World's Largest Aquarium". However, I'm not exactly sure how they're measuring it exactly. Total building size? Gallons of water? Number of fish? Size of fish?

I only bring this up because KJ and I have been to several great aquariums in the past few years, and while Atlanta's is certainly huge, it didn't keep us occupied as long as some of the others. And a lot of the length was due to the crowds.

That said, it is a great aquarium. We got tons of beautiful pictures there. If not for the crowds, I could have spent several more hours there. If you're people-phobic like me, here's my suggestion: Try to find out when the "off season" is, or wait a couple of years until the furor has died down a bit. For a great aquarium fix in the meantime, I would recommend the Newport Aquarium (http://www.newportaquarium.com/). No, it's not as big, but it's still pretty impressive. Plus, it's not as well-known, so you don't have as many problems with crowds. Why worry about whether or not the tank you're looking at holds 1 or 2 million gallons of water? Without the other people getting in your way and ruining your pictures, you can stare at the same tank for hours and still see new fish swim by.

Ripley's Aquarium in Gatlinburg (http://www.ripleysaquariumofthesmokies.com/) is good too, probably slightly better than Newport, but of course it's Gatlinburg... you're back to dealing with crowds again. Chattanooga's Aquarium (http://www.tnaqua.org/) is just okay... it's nice because it's close, but it's not worth visiting very often. Really, I'd almost rather just eat at the Aquarium Restaurant (http://www.aquariumrestaurants.com/AquariumNashville/) at the mall.

After the Aquarium, we drove to the nearby town of Douglasville to surprise my cousin at work, after which we saw the movie 1408. This movie is based on a short story by Stephen King, from the book "Everything's Eventual". I'm not often satisfied with 50-page stories forcibly stretched into 2-hour movies, but this one is quite good. It's "spooky-scary", not "gory-scary", so slasher fans might want to stay away. It's been a while since I've read the story, but I think it's relatively faithful, except towards the end. It's one of those where the longer it goes on, the farther it strays from the book. But I'm no purist - I believe that movies are movies and books are books, and some things work better in print than on screen. With the exception of about 20 minutes near the end, the director made some very good choices.

I have a hard time recommending 1408 because I'm afraid a lot of people just won't "get it". But the theater audience seemed to have a good time, so maybe that's not really an issue. This movie should be seen in the theater, as the gasps and screams from the audience were almost as entertaining as what's on the screen. Your mileage may vary, of course.

Before the movie, there were a couple of neat trailers I hadn't seen before. "Shoot 'Em Up" is full of mesmerizing (if unbelievable) action scenes, reminiscent of the Transporter movies or Crank... but instead of Jason Statham, this movie stars Clive Owen as an expert marksman, caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. (Also known as "Standard Movie Plot #23", but when you see the action, you won't care about the plot.)

"The Invasion" is yet another remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers. It updates the plot to make it more timely and less "60's Drive-In" schlock, but there wasn't much else interesting to say about it. I'll probably see it just to compare it with the other versions, but I'm not expecting much.

They also showed the trailer for Rob Zombie's remake of Halloween. I had already seen the trailer a few months ago, but this was the first time on a big screen. I've been reading a lot of debates about this one... it supposedly goes a bit deeper into Michael's mind, which could be good or bad. One of the coolest things about the original was that he was so blank. It made him a force of the unknown, a character with which no one could possibly relate, and in its own way it made Meyers a lot scarier. But I'll reserve judgement until I see this one, because the previews do look pretty darn cool.

Anyway, we stayed in Douglasville for the night. Bit of triva for you. The most annoying traffic light in the country is at the corner of Douglas Blvd and Bill Arp Rd. At least that was my experience - it didn't matter which direction we came from, it was always red when we got there, and stayed red for what seemed like 10 minutes. Coincidence, or does the light just not like out-of-towners?

Sunday morning we went to Atlanta's Pride Parade. I had planned to dress up - same outfit as Nashville Pride, but a different wig - but it was just too hot. KJ and I both got horrible sunburns as it was (we forgot to bring our sunblock). I can't imagine what it would have been like if I'd been wearing a wig.

Anyway, Pride was great. There were hundreds of booths with loads of neat stuff for sale, making us regret our tight budget. Then we watched was the longest parade I've ever seen. We managed to get a spot just a few feet from a group of religious protestors, who held up anti-gay signs and shouted Bible verses through their microphone. Eh, we mostly just laughed at them. I really can't say anything bad about the preachers because they were trying to help their fellow man. If they want to spread their beliefs in a non-violent way, then I have no problem with that.

But the stuff they were saying through their microphone was so incredibly stupid, that any idiot with a Bible and 10 minutes to spare could disprove whatever they said. I just wish these guys would do their research.

But again, the parade was a lot of fun; though I will have to say, the transgender community was woefully underrepresented. Nothing unusual there... I often feel like a minority within a minority that way. Still, there were plenty of unique people there, and while I'm not actually gay (in the man/man sense), I do feel a strong connection with the GLBT community. Seeing so many thousands of fellow freaks in one place makes me feel much less alone in the world.

God, I'm tired. Good night.

And Now For A Literary Interlude...

2007-07-24T00:26:00.000-05:00

The last few books I read:

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
by J.K. Rowling

I'll try and go light on the spoilers here, but if you truly don't want to know anything about this book, you should probably skip this review. Heh, "review"... like I'm Roger Ebert or something. This book doesn't need a review. If you've read the first six, you're obviously going to read it. If you haven't read any of them, then you're not going to start with this one. Rowling could have released 759 pages of Harry brushing his teeth, and it would still sell more copies than War and Peace.

A few weeks ago I posted a blog with my predictions about this one. I was right about some things, and I was wrong about some things. Deathly Hallows is definitely the darkest of this series, and has very little of the awe and wonder of the early books. In many ways it reads like a Nazi Holocaust story, with the characters constantly trying to find new places to hide from the evil army. There were parts that were hard to get through, simply because they were drawn out and depressing. But the action scenes are exciting, and the plot is involving. Like most of the HP books, it gets a little convoluted here and there, but everything ties up quite nicely in the end.

Overall, Deathly Hallows is quite good, and the perfect cap for the series. If I were to rank the series, favorite to least favorite, I would say 1, 4, 2, 6, 7, 3, 5. But all of them are excellent books, and easy to read despite the length. In fact, even though this one was one of the harder ones to get through, I still managed to read it in two days.

Icewind Dale: The Crystal Shard
by R.A. Salvatore

I'm halfway through the second book in this trilogy, and so far it's pretty good. The first book, The Crystal Shard, introduces us to Drizzt Do'Urden, one of the most well-known characters in D&D lore. Drizzt is a Drow (that's a dark elf, for you non-gamers), but he's a good guy, which is rare for a Drow. Which of course, means he's an outcast - his own people think he's too nice, and other races think all dark elves are evil. Drizzt is the ultimate "fan service" character, the kind of hero Todd McFarlane would design if he wrote novels instead of comics. There is absolutely nothing about this character that isn't "cool". He fights with a pair of scimitars, he can summon a black panther, he can hide like a ninja, he knows magic, and he's nearly untouchable in battle. Even his weaknesses are badass: he's allergic to sunlight, and he's a social outcast; so he stays in the shadows and wears concealing hoods. This is exactly the kind of "ultimate" character you would design if you were a twelve-year-old boy.

That said, the book is surprisingly absorbing. Salvatore, who some might remember for killing a major Star Wars character in Vector Prime, is actually a pretty good writer. I didn't care for his Star Wars writing at the time, but here he seems to be more in his element. I think he has more freedom here, even within the boundries of D&D's strict rulebooks, because he's using his own characters. While Drizzt is obviously Salvatore's favorite, the other characters get plenty of time to shine. They aren't nearly as deep as Drizzt (a couple of them feel like they walked right off a standard Character Sheet), but they have their moments. I do wish the book had a stronger female presence, though. The only major female character, Catti-Brie, gets very little screen time. I hope she has a larger role later in the trilogy.

If you've been wanting to try any books set in the D&D universe, I would definitely start with this one.

Cell
by Stephen King

Stephen King does zombie horror. Except they're not zombies. And it's another post-apocalyptic story, like The Stand. Except this is nothing like The Stand. Well, whatever it is, this is a really good book about the last few sane people in a world gone mad. This is one of those books that just jumps right into the story, hooking you after just a few pages, and becomes hard to put down. I thought the ending was a little weak, but the journey was still worth it. This is one of my favorite Stephen King books.

Lisey's Story
by Stephen King

This is NOT one of my favorite Stephen King books, but it wasn't bad. I can't tell you much about the plot without spoiling it, so this is going to be pretty vague: The main character is the widow of a famous novelist, and a large portion of the book is her flashbacks of life with her late husband. Like other King books involving novelists (The Dark Half, Misery), King throws a lot of himself into this book. It doesn't get interesting until about halfway through, so if you start it, stick with it. It took a lot of work to get to the good parts of this book, and I can't promise that the payoff is worth it. Overall, I am glad I read it, but I can't really recommend it.

The Dragonlance Chronicles
(Dragons of Autumn Twilight, Dragons of Winter Night, and Dragons of Spring Dawning)
by Margaret Weis & Tracy Hickman

I read these because they are some of the earliest novels that take place in the D&D universe. The characters introduced are well-known to gamers, and therefore these are books you're simply "supposed to have read" if you're in the gaming crowd. Standard fantasy fare; filled with dwarves and elves, monsters and magic, dungeons and, well, dragons. Let's call it "Tolkein For Dummies", since the elements are similar, but it's much easier to read. I enjoyed them, but they aren't particularly memorable.

She's Not There: A Life In Two Genders
by Jennifer Finney Boylan

This is the autobiography of a trangender college professor. Boylan is an excellent writer, and was already a published author even before she realized she was a woman. It's both thought-provoking and funny, with a quirky sense of humor punctuating the drama. This is one of two books I generally recommend anyone who is interested in learning more about the subject, the other being True Selves. True Selves is more informative; this one is more entertaining.

Religion Gone Bad
by Mel White

One of the few non-fiction books I've read by choice, this is a report on the war between Christian fundamentalism and gay rights. Much of the book is an attack on Jerry Falwell, who ironically died shortly after this book was published... kind of making it obsolete. But Falwell's associates still spread the same message, so the book is still relevant. It was written by a gay preacher, who was once a fundie himself before he saw the light. Pastor Mel White still preaches the word of God, but without the bigotry inherent in the sermons of fundies like Pat Roberson. If even half of what this book says is true (and with the extensive footnotes and bibliography, I don't think White made anything up), then I fear greatly for the future. Our current president has committed some serious crimes with regards to seperation of church and state; more than most people know. After reading this book, I'd have to say that if there is a Hell, Jerry Falwell is roasting in it as we speak. But that's just my opinion.

Harry Potter and the Underwhelming Soundtrack

2007-07-14T10:36:00.000-05:00

Thursday night we saw Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. Great movie, really enjoyable. -But- I think you might need to have read the book to appreciate it. It's hard to say if there were any actual "holes" due to the translation, because any questions I had would doubtlessly have been filled by memories from the book. Book 5 was my least favorite of the series, which is like saying my "least favorite" sexual position - it's still an awesome book. But it is talky and political, and while the movie only shows the most interesting parts of the book, I still think it's going to bore the more casual fans.

I loved Tonks, and I wish she'd had more screen time. Great casting all over, really - Bellatrix, Luna, Umbridge, even Mrs. Figg.

Terrible, terrible soundtrack. The score was bland, and absent in the oddest places. Heh, during Voldemort's fight with Dumbledore, I started humming "Duel of the Fates"... but it was odd that there wasn't any music playing already. The end credits music sounded like it belonged to another genre of movie altogether. They should really consider rescoring the movie before it hits DVD.

Another "Heh" - during that same battle between V&D, when Voldy made a giant firesnake, I wanted Dumbledore to shout, "You shall not pass!"

Live Free or Transform

2007-07-04T19:07:00.000-05:00

On Sunday we saw "Live Free or Die Hard". That is a fun movie, with lots of great action scenes. Of the four Die Hard movies, this is probably my second favorite. My only real problem is that all the best action shots - and all the funniest lines - were shown in the trailers. Of course, if you want to make people see your movie, you offer them lots of eye candy and quotable quotes. But you should at least leave something to the imagination.

The working title for this movie was "Die Hard 4.0", because the plot revolves around computers. I don't know how feasible this movie is from a technological standpoint, but it's pretty scary to see what could happen if someone had complete control over the nation's computers. Justin Long is cast as an expert hacker, and given his previous role as Macintosh spokesman, he's probably now typecast for life. I don't think I've seen a whinier character in any movie. Of course you know he's going to turn around and do something brave by the end of the movie, but in the meantime I wanted to kill him myself.

"We Just Lost Marty" factor: The movie starts out pretty good, but the action scenes get more and more outrageous as it goes one. There's a scene towards the end (involving an airplane) that is out-and-out outrageous... but who cares, it was fun.

Oh, and there was one part - and maybe I'm just being nitpicky here, but this really stood out to me. Remember back when the bad guys actually stayed down? Remember when they blew up Ah-nold in The Terminator, and you thought the movie was over, until the endoskeleton crawled out of the wreckage? Did you notice how after that, no bad guy ever stays down the first time, in any movie, anywhere?

So John McClane is fighting this villain, a strikingly beautiful Asian-looking martial arts expert. The actress is actually Polish-Irish/Vietnamese, but in the movies you only have to look Japanese to be a martial arts master. So, he knocks her down a few times, she knocks him down a few times, each giving and taking blows that would finish off anyone in real life. No biggie. She knocks him over a rail, he falls a few stories, gets back up, dusts himself off. No big deal. He finds a car, drives it back up to the top floor, drives through the wall, hits the woman with the car... and while stuck to the front grill, she still keeps fighting back. Clearly I need to switch vitamins.

But was that before or after he fights the circus acrobat in the air ducts? I don't remember... all I can say is that it's funny how bad guys can be such computer experts, spending a significant portion of their lives in front of keyboards, and still fight like Batman. But all that's okay, because the Die Hard movies take place in the "Action Movie" universe, a place where cars blow up like the Death Star when you tap the bumpers, where wounds stop bleeding within minutes, and where people can outrun explosions.

Reality is depressing; fantasy is exhilarating. I saw screw accuracy, and cue the explosions.

Today we saw "The Transformers". That was also mindless fun. It is a special effects movie, and it appeals to the little kid in me, the one who wanted to grow up to be a fire truck. It's hard to reconcile the fact that it's written like a grown-up movie, and yet it's clearly a toy-line concept.

I would have loved to see two other versions of this movie. One version would follow the cartoons more closely, with the old school designs and size-changing transformations. The other version would cut out the toy/comic tie-in altogether and strictly make a serious movie about shape-changing space robot invaders. As is, the movie feels a little bit schitzophrenic. You can see where the makers made agonizing decisions about what to include, and what to cut. Anything silly or far-fetched had to be weighed against it's value as fan service. What resulted is a perfectly adequate product, but with a very specific target audience.

People who never saw the cartoon/comics/toys are going to find the movie a bit goofy, but might enjoy the SFX and action. Classic Transformers fanatics are going to be angry over all the changes, but they're still going to see it 10 times and buy the DVD.

Of course, there are plot holes big enough to drive Optimus Prime through. Like it matters. If you put aside your suspension of disbelief long enough to accept the concept of the movie, then there's probably a lot of other things you're willing to accept.

In an early issue of the Transformers comic series, there was a scene in which a human fell off a cliff, and at the last second an autobot managed to catch him. This was absurd, of course - so he fell from a lethal height, but because he landed in a robot's metal hand instead of the ground, he was safe? Riiiight. Well, that same thing happens twice in the Transformers movie.

The dialogue was okay, but it varied in quality throughout the movie. My expectations in that area where pretty low, so I was fairly impressed. It's like the writers knew which lines were bad, and even admitted it once: When Sam told Mikaela that she was "more than meets the eye", the audience groaned. But after she left, Sam scolded himself saying, "That was a bad line!"

Since the robots speak very little in the previews, I had no idea what to expect from their personalities. More than any other factor, the robots' dialogue made the movie feel silly to me. Especially Optimus. Out of all the Autobots, Optimus Prime was the only one in the comics/toons who never broke his serious persona, and was generally a humorless character. But in this movie, he had some of the funniest lines. And the part when the Autobots are trying to hide from Sam's parents... for a moment I thought I was watching Ninja Turtles.

My biggest gripe is actually one of my own pet peeves. This is just my problem, so don't take it as a mark against the movie: I had trouble following a lot of the action. Either things happened too fast, or a scene would be filmed with a shaky-cam causing everything to blur. I hate shaky-cam, it ruins a lot of movies for me. I see the artistic relevance, but artistry means squat when I can't tell what's going on (or worse, getting nauseous). On the other hand, there were a few shots that where slowed down, Matrix-style... but that's another one of my pet peeves. I know, it sounds like I should avoid action movies altogether, but I generally love them when they don't go to those particular extremes.

I know it sounds like I've said a lot of negative things, but I really did love the movie. And as long as you know what you're getting into - two hours of frenzied action with nostalgic undertones - you'll have a great time.

By the way, with the Transformers movie premiered a new trailer for a so-far-untitled giant monster movie. The twist is that the movie is shot like the Blair Witch Project - all on home video cameras, as if someone found the footage later after the disaster. It's a neat trailer, so make sure you get to Transformers early enough to see the previews.

I'm In Ur House, Upsetting Ur Kitties

2007-07-02T03:01:00.000-05:00

We got a new kitten! KJ has been wanting one for a while, but we where waiting until we found the perfect one. Basically, she wanted one that "called to her". So today (technically yesterday now), while we were killing time before seeing a movie, we popped into PetSmart and discovered our kitten. Say hello to Sybil:

Sybil is an 8-week old female tortoiseshell. Like many kittens, she has two modes: Play and sleep.

Banchi and Honi are NOT happy about the new addition. They both ran upstairs, and have holed up in separate hiding spots. They hiss whenever we go near them, or when they see each other.

But they will get over it. Sooner or later they'll realize that the new kitten is not going away, and they'll have to accept her (or at least learn to avoid/ignore her). Until then, we're keeping their claws trimmed, and keeping an eye on them to make sure they don't hurt her.

Nicholas Cage Spectacular!

2007-06-30T21:52:00.000-05:00

That's about the only time you'll ever see the words "Nicholas Cage" and "Spectacular" together. Nick Cage has never been one of my favorite actors, and yet I always seem to enjoy his movies. Here's the rundown on the last three Nick Cage movies I viewed.

***Next***

Nick Cage does sci-fi! ...that about sums it up. The movie "Next" is actually pretty neat... but forgettable. The concept is cool - Cage can see two minutes into the future, allowing him to do little things like dodge bullets and cheat at cards. There's some great action scenes and fun special effects, but the movie doesn't really go anywhere interesting. Julianne Moore plays his main enemy, even though they're both "good guys". And Moore can't seem to act. I've always thought Moore was a good actress, ever since her pantsless scene in "Short Cuts"... er... I mean, ever since her minor role in "The Fugitive". But in "Next", apparently the director told her to just read her lines and try not to act. Anyway, Next is an okay movie that won't put you to sleep. It wouldn't hurt to add it to your Netflix queue, but I wouldn't drive to the video store just to rent it.

***GhostRider***

It's not as dumb as it looks.

I was skeptical of this one, mainly because the previews made it look silly, stupid, and goofy. And the Ghostrider is all those things, but in a good way. I'm sure the critics ripped this one to shreds, but really, do the critics even have fun at the movies any more? Ghostrider is a popcorn muncher, nothing more or less, and shouldn't be judged next to Academy Award winners.

Ghostrider is not as deep or memorable as the "Spider-Man" or "X-Men" movies. But it keeps you awake, unlike snore-fests "Hulk" and "Elektra". In comparing it to other comic book movies, I'd say it's closest to "The Fantastic Four" - which is another movie that has been undeservedly trashed by the critics.
Cage works much harder than the role really deserves. I respect that - he acts as though this amusement park ride is an "actual" movie. Actually, it's not just Cage, most of the acting in the movie is better than I would have required... except possibly for Cage's love interest - she's just as shallow as I would have expected.

The bad guys are two-dimensional and forgettable. The main bad guy is the vampire-like son of Satan, which you'd think would be enough to make him interesting, but it doesn't. That's a little disappointing, as a good cheesy movie should have an over-the-top bad guy.

Anyway, I liked the movie, but it's not one of those I'd see over and over. I would rather see it again than "Daredevil"... but I'd also rather get a prostate exam than sit through Daredevil again, so take that however you want.

Oh, and the Mortal Kombat reference.... awesome.

***Wicker Man***

Bad, good, who cares? The original was much, much better than this okay remake, and it still stands the test of time. I liked the new one, but there's simply no reason to see it over the old one, unless you're just the world's biggest Nick Cage fan. Of course, if none of your local video stores have a copy of the old one, the new one's not a bad substitute. You should be able to say you've seen at least one version, because it's just a neat story.

Rant on Retro-Gaming

2007-06-17T23:28:00.000-05:00

Video games have come a long way. They're prettier than ever before, with more realism and depth than the makers of "Pong" ever would have thought possible. But that depth comes at a price - now that video games have more in common with books, I find I just don't have time to play them. While I like to get sucked into a good adventure game when I can, most of the time I just can't stick with one game long enough to play through it. Sometimes I just want to sit back and blow things up, without worrying about where to find the Star Crest to open the courtyard door. That's why I like arcade classics. Well, nostalgia's a big factor too, but mostly I like the fact that I can just turn them on and play.

But I hate, hate, hate the way they're sold! What is the deal with putting ten classic arcade games (only three of which are still fun) on one disc (or cart), labelling it "Volume 1", then selling it for $40? Guys, these games have been paid for. You made your money back on these games decades ago. The people who programmed them have retired. Those of you currently working at the company aren't even actually working when you release these classic compilations. There's simply no reason to have six volumes of Namco's Greatest Hits, when each disk contains 5% games and 95% "History of Namco" videos nobody's going to watch.

No wonder emulation is so popular. You can fit hundreds of ROMs on a CD, and the same ROMs work on different emulators/systems. Meanwhile, I've bought "Joust" like, 14 times for various video game systems. That's a lot of money for a game that takes about 30 kb of hard drive space. But it's not even the money that really gets to me, it's the presentation. These are "twitch" games, and as such, I like to play one for a few minutes then switch to another. It's less fun if I keep having to change out CDs/DVDs/cartridges, so having more games on one disk really does make it better. Plus, the "turn on and play" advantage is becoming less and less of a feature, since you have to sit through 10 minutes of developer logos and loading screens when you first put in the CD.

Luckily I tend to do my retro-gaming on cartridge-based handheld systems, so loading isn't a factor, but there's still a few minutes between the time I first put in the cartridge, and when I actually get to play the game. I understand that everyone wants to get credit, and everyone wants you to see their pretty little company logo. But again, these games were programmed 20 years ago. What the game company is doing now is basically burning them onto a CD for us. Why does it take 8 development teams to do this, and does each one have to show me their logo?

The worst part is, the game companies don't get accurate feedback on these complaints. If a compilation doesn't sell well, then the company says, "Well, I guess retrogaming isn't really 'in' right now." Never mind that they were trying to sell six ancient games for $30. But a compilation doesn't really have to sell that well for them to make a profit, since production costs are so low. If a compilation makes the slightest profit, then they rush to find six more old games for the next volume - making extra-sure that only two are popular classics, and the other four are obscure rubbish.

I think the game companies are starting to take the hint, as I have started to see a few classics disks with larger libraries. The PS2 collections have more games on them than the PS1 collections; the DS collections have more games on them than the GBA collections. I'm sure the game companies would like us to believe that this is due to the higher capacities of the newer formats, but we're not that stupid. I've seen the bootleg GBA carts with nearly 200 8-bit NES games on them. And yet Capcom releases a "Capcom Mini Mix" collection for the GBA with 3 (Wow, 3!) 8-bit NES games on it. It was a fair selection - Bionic Commando, Strider, and Mighty Final Fight - but they really could have tried harder.

To me, the worst offender is Nintendo itself. A few years ago they released a series of "Nintendo Classics" for the GBA, all re-releases of 8-bit NES games, at around $20 each. They could have easily fit the entire set on one cart and still made a profit, but that's just not how they think. And let's not forget how they kept re-releasing the classic Mario games for the GBA, one at a time. Why not "Super Mario All-Stars", like they had on the SNES? I'm sure you know the answer to that one, and it has nothing to do with cartridge capacity.

I recently purchased "Konami Classics Arcade Hits" for the DS, and it's not bad. It has 15 games on it, about half of which are still fun to play. My biggest beef with it is that I was hoping it would make their previous GBA collection, "Konami Arcade Advanced", obsolete. But no, the new one includes some of the games on the previous cart, but not all of them; and the GBA cart has a neat "updated graphics" option for a couple of the games on it.

I also have "Retro Atari Classics", which takes an interesting concept and does nothing good with it. They took ten classic arcade games (of which only about 3 are still fun), and let three famous grafitti artists give them a visual makeover. The problem is, only one of the grafitti artists is any good. But at least it gives you the option of playing with the original graphics instead, in case you don't like the Remix version. Another problem (on the DS version, anyway) is that they overuse the stylus. The stylus actually makes sense as a trackball alternative, but they didn't even give the option of using the joypad instead. And that's just mean. While I think the touch screen is one of the coolest features of the DS, I do wish the game companies wouldn't force us to use it as a primary means of control.

One of the better classics compilations, at least in presentation, is "Activision Anthology" for the GBA. Now we're talking about a serious collection, with over 50 games on it. Unfortunately, they're Atari 2600 games, which means they're extremely dated. But Activision always did make the best games for the Atari (Pitfall, Chopper Command, etc), so you're still getting the cream of the crop. And again, twitch games - you really don't need good graphics to have fun.

One of the most confusing is Namco's GBA releases. First they released "Namco Museum" with the following games: Galaxian, Ms. Pac-Man, Galaga, Pole Position, and Dig Dug. Then they released "Namco Museum 50th Anniversary" which included Pac-Man, Ms. Pac-Man, Galaga, Dig Dug, and Bosconian. For the same system. I just don't get it. Hopefully when they get around to making a DS collection, they'll use their heads.

She's Got a Chicken to Ride...

2007-06-09T04:05:00.000-05:00

This is how lunatics entertain themselves:

A "Mondegreen" is a misunderstood song lyric. The term was invented when a certain author misheard "upon the green" as "mondegreen". The example I hear of most is "'Scuse me while I kiss this guy" instead of "kiss the sky". You can find mondegreen web sites all over the web, just Google "misheard song lyrics". There's a good database at www.kissthisguy.com.

While some are more well-known than others, none of them are universal. There's oodles of different ways people sing the lyrics to "Louie Louie". And just ask 10 different people what Springsteen says after "Blinded by the light..." I think my favorite Mondegreen is the one Phoebe mentions in an episode of Friends, the Elton John song that says, "Hold me closer Tony Danza..."

I have a slight hearing problem. Noises aren't too quiet; I hear volume just fine. But if there's any interfering noises, I have trouble picking out the sounds I want to hear. So I have a big problem with song lyrics, because the instruments are too distracting. As such, I can have a favorite song that I've heard for years, without ever having memorized the lyrics. So I got in the habit of making up my own.

You probably pity KJ about right now.

These days, most of my alternate lyrics aren't really "mondegreens", as I've pretty much gotten into the habit of singing the wrong words to every song on the radio, whether I understand the actual words or not. You can probably blame Weird Al. He's always been one of my favorite performers, and ever since I first heard of him in the 80s, I've been coming up with my own alternate lyrics for popular songs. The main difference being, I suck at it. In college, my buddy Alan and I came up with lots of odd lyrics, and we completely rewrote "Here's a Quarter" with our version titled, "Ned McWhorter Just Fell Down The Stairs". ("Call someone who glistens... and might live on Spam... or one of them chocolate eclairs...")

A couple of years later I started singing this version of the song "I Swear": "I swear... Like a sailor with tacks in his boot... I swear... Like a soldier who just shot his foot... Whenever there's trouble, whenever there's pain, Whenever I just washed the car and it rains, I swear..."

But most of the time it's not nearly that complex or thought out. There's a lot of commonly used words in songs that I just automatically substitute with other words, often without even thinking about it. For example, I often replace "love" with "slug". This works well both as a noun ("You Can't Hurry Slugs") and a verb ("Slug The One You're With"). However, if the context has someone "falling in" love, then I replace love with "lava" ("Don't Fall In Lava").

I also replace "peace" with "peas", for example: "Carry on my wayward son... There'll be peas when you have corn." One of the sillier things I do is replace "way" with "curds" (curds and whey, get it?), as in, "Oooooh, baby I love your curds..." On the rare occasion I hear the song "I Fall To Pieces, I sing the words, ""I swallow Reese's..." Lets see... instead of "Heaven Is A Place On Earth", I sing, "Heaven Is A Place With Smurfs."

One December at work, the radio station would alternate between Christmas songs and classic rock. It was kind of surreal, one minute you'd be listening to "Rudolph, the Red-Nosed Reindeer", the next minute they'd be playing the Stones' "Paint It Black". Which led me to start singing, "I see a reindeer and I want it painted black..." Now that you've read that, I dare you to try to hear the song again without thinking that.

Sometimes I'll come up with something subconsiously, and sing it without even knowing I'm singing it, regardless of who's around. Luckily only KJ was in the car when I belted out this highly perverse alternate verse for "I Will Follow Him" (Warning, not for young eyes): "I love him, I love him, I love him, and when he comes I'll swallow, I'll swallow, I'll swallow..." I've probably ruined that song for you for life.

Anybody else got any favorites they want to post here?

My Harry Potter Predictions

2007-06-06T23:09:00.000-05:00

Warning: This blog assumes you have read the first six books, and may contain spoilers.

I only have a couple of iron-clad predictions for the next Harry Potter book: It will make bazillions of dollars, and someone's going to spoil the ending for me before I manage to finish reading it. Beyond that, your guess is really as good as mine. However, here's a few Q&As that have been buzzing around my head:

Is Harry going to die?
It certainly looks like he is, which is exactly why I think he won't. So many people are worried about Harry's fate in the upcoming book. By now, anyone who's read the sixth book (The Half-Blood Prince) has pondered whether Harry is a horcrux. When Voldemort zapped baby Harry, he was transferring part of himself into the kid. That's also why Voldy hasn't been able to kill him, because doing so would kill Voldemort himself. Sure, Dumbledore told Harry that he was protected by hi Mother's love or some crap, but that was so Harry wouldn't find out he was a horcrux. In Book 6 it was revealed that Harry has to find and destroy all the horcruxes in order to be rid of Voldemort forever. So it really looks like the only way to kill Voldemort is to kill Harry Potter.

But the fact that people already see this, is what tells me it won't happen. When I read the first book, I was sure Snape was the one trying to steal the Sorceror's Stone. There was so much foreshadowing, that it had to be true. Yeah, it could have been a red herring, but I knew it was a children's book, so it wouldn't be that deep. And yet it was. I think Rowling is once again trying to trick us. There are so many people out there who already think they know how Book 7 is going to end, that it can't possibly end that way.

My guess is that sometime in the first half of Book 7, Harry is going to figure out that he's a horcrux. He's going to go through the rest of the book believing he's going to have to die in order to kill Voldemort. Then, at the end, there's going to be a twist that allows him to live.

One more thing: I've heard several people say, "Harry's death is the only way it can end." Then they'll go on about things like honor, duty, a boy becoming a man and realizing that he has to sacrifice himself to save everyone else, yada yada yada. I don't care how it's presented, killing Harry would be a piss-poor way to end the series. I have really enjoyed the series so far, and I have to believe that I'm going to enjoy Book 7 as well. I believe that overall, I'm going to have a great impression of the series, and I'll want to read all seven again someday. But if Harry dies, I probably won't like the series as much. Therefore, the boy will live. I know that's not exactly logical reasoning, but that's what I believe.

Is Dumbledore really dead?
When the fifth book (Order of the Phoenix) was on its way out, Rowling announced that someone was going to die in it. When I got to the book's climax, I knew someone was going to die soon. But when I read the death scene itself, I said, "Was that it?" That's the scene that made Rowling says made her cry when she wrote it? Sirius Black didn't die, he fell through a door. What a freaking cop-out. She could bring him back any time she feels like it. In a magical world, a true death scene requires things like, I don't know, a BODY. I mean, look at Peter Pettigrew. They assumed he'd been disintegrated when they found his finger.

But Dumbledore's case is a little different. They found a body, plus his picture was in the painting. But I'm still a little suspicious. For starters, the way it happened - Snape shoots Dumbledore, Dumbledore falls over the edge. Later they find his body on the ground. When I read it, my first thought was, "That's when they pulled the switch". What kind of switch, I don't know. Maybe Dumbledore zapped himself into the painting. But for some reason I have doubts regarding whethert it was actually Dumbledore's body they found on the ground.

Maybe Dumbledore will be back in the next book. Maybe he'll appear towards the end, just in time to tell Harry how to kill Voldy without dying himself. Maybe Dumbledore will even die again at the end of Book 7, sacrificing himself to save Harry. Or not. I don't know.

Book 7 is going to be so different from the others. The first six were so formulaic - they start with Harry at the Dursley's house, then he goes to school, it goes through the entire school year, then he goes back to the Dursleys. Dumbledore is also a strong part of the formula. He's like a Dungeonmaster, indirectly guiding Harry through his adventures, giving Harry hints and accomplishing through Harry what he can't do himself, then explaining it all at the end of the book. But with Harry not going back to Hogwarts, and no Dumbledore to guide him, and Harry having grown up so much by now, this book is going to break the formula all kinds of ways. Which makes it much harder to predict.

Is Snape really a bad guy?
The best I can say, is that there's still more to Snape than meets the eye. I know, "Duh." Rowling fooled us in the first book, it wouldn't be unlike her to do it again. Potter fans are quick to point out that in Book 6, when Snape is about to kill Dumbledore, the headmaster's pleas are sort of ambiguous. Is Dumbledore pleading for Snape not to kill him? Highly doubtful, that just doesn't sound like him. The way the scene plays out, it's almost as if Dumbledore and Snape had some sort of plan, and "killing" Dumbledore was part of the plan.

So who will die in Book 7?
Beats me. I really hope that Harry, Ron, Hermione, and Ginny stay alive. If one of them does die, my money's on Ron. On the other hand, Rowling did a lot of pushing characters together in the sixth book. The whole Harry/Ginny thing seemed a little rushed and/or forced. I can't help but wonder if Rowling needed one more emotional card to play in Book 7, one more potential tragedy for Harry to overcome before the final battle.

Will there ever be another Harry Potter Book?
Rowling has made it very clear that this is meant to be a seven-book series. However, this is also the first thing she's ever written. She doesn't know a damn thing about the curses from which writers suffer. Often you think a story is over and done with, and then your brain starts imagining further scenerios for your characters. Eventually you can't stop obsessing until you write them down. I have no doubt Rowling will take a nice long break from the Potterverse after Book 7 hits the shelves. Maybe she'll start spending more time with her family, or maybe she'll start writing something else. But sooner or later she's going to get the itch to revisit Harry's world. Maybe she'll give in to the temptation, maybe she won't.

My Week

2007-06-03T00:26:00.000-05:00

Friday, 5/25:
As I was walking out the door to go to work, I got a splitting headache, the likes of which I haven't had since high school. I figured it was allergy-related, so I took a Benadryl and an Aleve. I barely managed to drive to work, and for the first hour I was there, I was a total zombie. Luckily everyone's always at lunch when I get there, so nobody noticed.

Sunday, 5/27:
KJ and I went to the Tennessee Renaissance Festival with a couple of friends. We've been several times, but this is the first time we actually dressed up. We had a great time. There's a couple of pictures in my photos section, in the "Matt & KJ" folder.

Monday, 5/28:
We attempted to see Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End. During the drive to the theater, I started to get another headache. But I figured, "It'll pass, the show must go on." As I sat in the theater, my headache just got worse and worse. My eyes became extremely light-sensitive, so I could only glance at the screen every few seconds. About thirty minutes into the movie, I told KJ that I needed to leave. KJ went up to the customer service desk, and they were nice enough to give us free passes for later. We went home, I took some pills and a nap, and it went away.

Tuesday, 5/29:
KJ had a dentist appointment.

Wednesday, 5/30:
KJ had a doctor appointment.

Thursday, 5/31:
About thirty minutes before I was to leave for work, I started to get another headache. Like the other two, it seemed to come out of nowhere, and went from zero to "OH GOD KILL ME" in the span of fifteen minutes. I tried lying down for a while, but it hurt too much to even relax. My head was pounding in every direction. I couldn't put my head on the pillow, because even the pressure of the pillow touching my head was too much. I was in so much pain I was screaming. I've never had a headache like this - the migraines I suffered in high school didn't even come close. If I owned a gun, I'd be dead now. But KJ gave me a pain pill, and eventually I managed to fall asleep.

When KJ woke me up, the headache was mostly gone, and we went to the doctor. He had me get a CAT scan. As it turns out, I have some sort of sinus infection, which confused my doctor because I didn't show any symptoms of such. And now I'm on so many kinds of pills, I can barely keep them straight. There's the anti-depressant I always take, plus right now I've got an anti-inflammatory (twice a day), a steroid (several times a day), and an antibiotic (twice a day). Not to mention some emergency headache pills to use if I get another bad one.

Friday, 6/1:
I had an appointment with my Psychiatrist. I mention this because between the two of us, KJ and I have now seen a doctor every business day of the week. Plus I have two more appointments next week.

Saturday, 6/2:
We went to Nashville Pride. I didn't march in the parade, but I took a lot of pictures of it. It was the first time I've gone out "dressed" in the day time, and I had a great time. There's a couple of pictures in my photos section, in the "En Femme" folder.

Later, we finally saw Pirates 3 all the way through. In general, I enjoyed it. The plot is overly-convoluted and not really worth following, but the action scenes and special effects are not to be missed. I liked it a lot better than the second one, so if you've seen the first two, there's no reason not to finish out the trilogy. It's fun.

Spider-Man 3 (And the usual theater rant)

2007-05-08T01:22:00.000-05:00

Nashville friends, I've said this before, but it bears repeating: Regal Green Hills 16, at the Mall at Green Hills. Seriously, it's the only way I'll go to a theater on a Friday or Saturday night. It's a neighborhood full of conservative rich people, and the theater's management knows it. They throw out people who talk on cell phones or make too much noise, and I've never seen more well-behaved audiences. Plus, it's a Regal, which means comfortable stadium seating.

Last Saturday night was the worst experience I've ever had at that theater... and it was still pretty damn good. The audience was full of teenagers, and yes, some of them were talking (both to each other and on their cell phones). And yet overall, the room was still quieter than a Wednesday afternoon at any other theater. I remember when I saw "The Mummy Returns" on a Friday night at Hollywood 27, the audience reminded me of the theater scene in Gremlins.

I've noticed that people have started using their cell phones as flashlights when returning to their seats after a bathroom/concession break. Is this really neccessary? We got along fine before cell phones, and back then we didn't have those neat little light strips on the stairs. I guess technology really is making us helpless.

Another tip for the Green Hills theater: Park on the lowest level of the parking garage. Then when you leave the movie, use the lower level exit. You'll be right at your car.

Anyway, the movie. This is not going to be spoiler-free, so let me bottom-line it for you: If you liked the first two, this one is almost as good.

Before I saw Spider-Man 3, I read a lot of negative reviews. I agree with most of what the reviewers had to say - the script wasn't very good, the plot was a bit convoluted and contrived, and some of the emotional scenes were actually painful to watch. But it's a comic-book movie, and the worst thing a comic book movie can do is bore me. (Yeah, I'm looking at you, Elektra!) Spidey 3 did not bore me; not even close.

The problem is the high bar set by Spideys 1 & 2. While still cheesy in their own right, those two were just good enough to trancend the status of "comic book movie", and were enjoyable even by people who don't know the difference between Marvel and DC. But I really think you'd have to be a fan of the comics (or at least the cartoons) to love Spidey 3. The movie is written so that fanboys could say things like, "Hey, that's Gwen Stacey! She was in the comic book!" It's also a bit less believable than the first two. Not that 1 & 2 were particularly believable, but they both had "science gone mad" themes that could classify them as "sci-fi" instead of just "comic book movies". This one is a definite comic book movie, no question.

I did not like Venom's "origin". He just comes to Earth from a meteor, like "The Blob". And just happens to touch down near Peter Parker. Gosh, how lucky can a symbiote get? It's like he was specifically trying to target someone with super powers, which would have been a neat plot point if they'd ever actually said it. Once he bonds with Peter's costume, it turns the suit black. No "suit grows around him" ability, and this version of Spidey already has organic web shooters, so it's a bit unclear how the suit really helps him. Spidey mentions that he feels more powerful, but since we really never knew the limits of his spider-strength, that's not as impressive as it could have been. Symbiotes are supposed to give back a little, ya know? All this one does is make Peter act like a jerk (complete with corny "Evil Peter" haircut). I mean, the nerve of some aliens; no wonder immigration laws are so tough.

The Sandman is given a backstory that ties in with Peter's, and has his own sob-story reasons for being a bad guy. If there were ever a series of movies to make you sympathetic for villains, this is it. Green Goblin? His experiments make him crazy. Doc Oc? Loses his wife, and his cybernetic implants make him crazy. Harry Osborn? Not really a "criminal" per se, but thinks Spider-Man killed his dad. And now Sandman, who is stealing to help his sick daughter. It's like the director is trying to say, "There are no bad people, just misunderstood people with different points of view." What I wouldn't give for a villain Spidey could pummel without saying, "I don't want to hurt you!" I suppose Venom fits the bill, but even Eddie Brock is under the influence of the symbiote (he just happens to like it).

Topher Grace as Eddie Brock - not the casting choice I would have made, but he does a great job. He's sleazy, slimey, and scuzzy; an unethical fast-talking greaseball with no depth. I honestly don't think I would have recognized the character as Topher Grace. Toby Macguire looks more like Eric Foreman than Topher does.

The movie's climax is extremely over-the-top and "comic-booky". The trap Venom and Sandman set for Spidey is melodramatic and grandiose, with giant evil spiderwebs and a dangling damsel and a super-sized Sandman. Venom still doesn't show much depth, and even at the end of the movie he's pretty much just an evil alien monster who looks like Spawn.

Peter Parker has trouble keeping his mask on. Throughout the trilogy, and especially in this one, he's constantly pulling it off at weird times, or having it yanked off by his enemies. I think the director wants us to see him as a person, instead of as a one dimensional comic book character. It's the whole "which is the disguise" debate regarding secret identities: Where "Bruce Wayne" is just an act that Batman sometimes puts on, "Spider-Man" is the act that Peter Parker puts on. Still, if my mask came off that easily, I think I'd consider investing in some velcro or something. And what happened to his Spider-Sense? There were a couple of great Spider-Sense scenes in 1 & 2, but in this movie it seems like they forgot all about it.

Overall it's a very fun - but very flawed - comic book movie. If you're the kind of person who likes that sort of thing, then I imagine you know it. There is talk of a fourth movie featuring Carnage and the Lizard. I would like to see that, but if it doesn't happen, I'm still happy. This movie wraps up the Harry & Peter story quite nicely. If they made a fourth one, I'd like to see Pete and MJ get married at the end, just to wrap up that storyline. But I don't want to see the series go beyond that; if Spidey 3 is any indication, there's no way they could keep up the quality.

It's Blo-og, It's Blo-og, It's Big, It's Heavy, It's Wood...

2007-04-26T11:19:00.000-05:00

So many of people's blogs out there are about "what I did today", while I usually wait until I actually have something to say before I post something. But not today; this is one of my "you know, I think I really like peanut butter" blogs. Or "YKITIRLPB" blogs, for short.

My work seems to have blocked MySpace. At first I thought it was all the machines, but nope. I know a couple of employees who can still access it, and I know of one other who can't. Usually when they block a site, it blocks it for everyone. So apparently they feel certain specific employees are spending too much time on MySpace. I can't see how; I admit I was checking it for messages now and then throughout the day, but only during downtime. And each visit only took a few seconds - log on, check it, log off.

Well, I do have one alternate theory... I think sometimes my work's content blocker will block sites based on certain keywords on the page. I suppose it's possible there's some ads or something that only show up on mine (and the other blocked employee). But I don't think so - I cleared my cache, and went straight to the main page (www.myspace.com), and it's still showing up as "Forbidden".

Jumping the Shark

I really hate the phrase "Jump the Shark". I don't know why; it just gets under my skin. Last night on the TV Guide channel, they had a special on current TV shows they felt had Jumped the Shark, and of course they felt obligated to explain the origin of the phrase (as if anyone watching the thing didn't already know it). In the explanation, they mentioned (without drawing attention to it) that Happy Days ran from 1974-1984, and the JtS episode was in 1977. So Happy Days - one of the most popular TV shows of all time - jumped the shark after three years, and still lasted another seven? That doesn't really fit the generally understood meaning of the phrase.

A friend of mine heard a radio interview with Henry Winkler a while back. Winkler said that at the time of the shark episode, the show hadn't even hit the height of its popularity yet. Usually a show jumps the shark when it's on the way out, and the writers are grasping at straws to save the series. I'll admit the shark episode was a really bad idea for an episode, but as the origin of the phrase, it's an utter misnomer.

The Name Game

Anyway, I've been using "Christine" as my Femme name, but now I'm considering "Madeline". I've always loved the name Christine. Someone asked me if I named myself after Christine Jorgenson, one of the most famous early sex-change recipient. But no, it's just always been my favorite female name, even when I was a kid. Oddly enough, I remember being in elementary school, and thinking that if I ever had a daughter, I'd name her Christine.

But being my favorite name doesn't make it "my" name. I'm finding that I don't really connect to it the way I thought I would. People call out "Christine", and I don't turn my head. Granted, I'm not used to it yet. But still, I don't know. There's a woman at work who calls me "Mattie", and I've found that it really works for me. Of course, a lot of transfolk use the opposite-gendered version of their original name. Anything to make the transition easier.

So I'm keeping Christine - I still have a strong affection for it - but it'll be my middle name. Madeline Christine, "Maddy" for short.

By the way, I think I really like peanut butter.

I'm Not A Weirdo!

2007-04-26T00:43:00.000-05:00

...well, no more than usual, anyway.

Just looking at the coverage of the Steve Stanton story (I know, I sound like a broken record), it really bugs me the misconceptions people have about transfolk. The bigots of Largo - and I feel perfectly justified in calling them bigots after hearing their statements - have absolutely no idea what "transgender" even means. People, Stanton is not changing genders so she can wear a leather thong and sing "YMCA". She's not doing this so she can participate in public orgies. She's not doing this so she can wear a Tammy Fay Baker makeup job and parade her transsexuality around town. She's just doing this so she can - someday - live a "normal" life as a normal woman.

People judge transfolk by their most outrageous specimens, the ones who end up on TV. I would imagine that when the average person hears the word "transsexual", what they actually picture is a drag queen. And it makes sense that you don't know what an actual transperson looks like - the most successful transpeople are living ordinary lives in their new gender, and often their newer friends are none the wiser.

I recently read "She's Not There" by Jennifer Finney Boylan. It's a very entertaining autobiography of a transsexual, and I highly recommend it to anyone who wants to understand subject a little better. Anyway, there's a statistic in there I found interesting:
"Professor Lynn Conway at the University of Michigan estimates that there are forty thousand transgendered male-to-females in this country, and that counts only the ones who have already had the surgery. According to Professor Conway, that makes the condition more common than cleft palate and multiple sclerosis."
Note, the book was printed in 2003. I'm sure it's gone up since then.

Which means there's a fair chance that you know someone who wasn't born the sex they are now. That's right, they walk among us! And you might never know, and why would you? For that matter, why should it matter to you? They are who they are; there's no reason to judge them for it. Being a transsexual doesn't make them weirdos, freaks, or sexual deviants. It just means that at some point in their lives, their brains didn't match their bodies.

For those who missed it on my main page, here's The Daily Show's take on the Stanton case:

VA Tech Shooting Caused by Talking Alien Raccoons

2007-04-23T23:53:00.000-05:00

...at least, somebody probably thinks so. I'd like to tell you that the actual headlines aren't quite as silly (or in as poor taste), but at this point I honestly can't.

The bodies weren't even cold yet, and the media's biggest attention-hounds were already trying to use the tragedy to support their own agenda. Let's take Jack Thompson, for instance. He hates video games so much, that he scans the newspaper every day for atrocities he can blame on them. So when something like the Virginia Tech shooting happens, good ol' JT already has his speech nearly written; he just has to fill in the specific names and dates. The good news is, nobody has to pay attention to anything Thompson says any more, because you can pretty much guess it. A postal worker goes on a shooting spree? Must have been playing GTA. Peeping tom terrorizes neighborhood? Must've learned his voyeuristic habits from playing The Sims. Obesity on the rise? Blame Pac-Man. World Trade Center attacks? The terrorists must've been playing Microsoft Flight Simulator.

Jack Thompson blames the VA Tech shootings on Counterstrike. Dr. Phil also agrees that video games must have been an influence. Neither has any actual evidence to base this on - no games were found in Cho Seung Hui's possession, and his roommate confirmed that he never saw Cho playing them. But why mess up a perfectly good theory with facts? Meanwhile, Reverend Fred Phelps, head of the charming "God Hates America" and "God Hates Fags" websites, is claiming that the tragedy is yet more evidence that America is being punished for its sins (you know, like tolerating homosexuals)... and is using it as an excuse to disrupt the funerals. And Christian news website "One News Now" somehow managed to blame the shootings on the fact that evolution is being taught in public schools.

When people accuse this of being a "blameless society", it usually means that it's the criminals who come up with excuses for what they've done. But now it's not just the perpetrators making the excuses; everyone wants to get in on the act. Now bear with me. Isn't it possible - even remotely - that the shooting had nothing to do with God or video games or evolution or violent movies or karma or astrology or Harry Potter? Isn't it possible that Cho Seung Hui is just an asshole? Can we please let a tragedy go by without trying to blame it on whatever "hot button" is currently vogue? When you come up with ridiculous objects of blame, all you're doing is helping the criminals by giving them new things to try in court.

Now, I'm all for examining Mr. Hui to find out how his brain works. I'll happily allow my tax dollars to go towards researching the psychopathic mind. Anything to keep this kind of thing from happening again. But Jack Thompson, Fred Phelps, and the rest of these loudmouths aren't trying to probe a killer's mind. They're just furthering their own careers, and playing "the blame game" without a shred of real evidence to support their opinions.

The Gambler

2007-04-04T08:51:00.000-05:00

*sigh* Okay, okay, I'm not always right.

I've told KJ many times how much her gambling habits annoy me. It's a silly hobby, and statistically it's cheaper to just throw money out the window. On the other hand, I don't mind playing video poker, since it's basically just a video game. And unlike a video game arcade, there is at least the possibility you'll walk out with more money than you had coming in.

So I'm of two minds on it. I still think it's a waste of time, but KJ has fun whether she wins or loses. As long as she's doing it for the fun instead of the money, and she sets aside how much she's going to spend beforehand, I don't mind her gambling that much. Not that I would try to stop her anyway, it's her life.

But I must confess that whenever she comes home emptyhanded, there is a part of me that enjoys saying "I told you so." Which is why this last trip was wonderfully, horribly, blissfully, ironically bittersweet.

Yesterday was KJ's birthday, and she wanted to spend it gambling in Metropolis. We booked a one-night stay at Harrah's hotel, which only cost $20 because of KJ's rewards card. The room was wonderful. Second most comfortable bed we'd ever slept in (the first was the Sheraton in Indianapolis). We had a view of the river, a widescreen TV, and a bathtub I could have used for high diving.

Of course, I don't like casinos. Too noisy. And there's really not much else to do in Metropolis, if you've already been to the Superman museum. But I was two thirds through a great book ("She's Not There" by Jennifer Finney Boylan), and had just purchased Final Fantasy III for my DS. So I was set for the night.

KJ leaves to go gamble. She takes no actual money, just some rewards coupons Harrah's sent her. Probably about $30 worth. A few hours later, I'm finishing up my book, and KJ comes back. She hands me $1100. I tuck $1000 of it away, and she keeps $100 to gamble on later. We go to dinner, which is on the house (another rewards coupon). Afterwards, she gambles away the $100 while I play my DS in the hotel room. I'm asleep by the time she gets in.

After breakfast this morning, KJ went to gamble some more, while I sat in the car playing FFIII. She didn't take any money, just another coupon. This coupon was for a surprise amount, which KJ thought was going to be $5. Well, it turned out to be for $100. A few hours later, my DS was just starting to run low on charge when KJ came back to the car, and handed me another $1000.

So for the price of gas and a $20 for a hotel room, we came home with about $2000. Now I know what this means. Tomorrow KJ has a dentist appointment. I bet the dentist is going to tell her she needs a $2000 dental procedure. That's just how our lives work. Which is a pity, because I really wouldn't mind a TV like the one they had at the hotel, but a few sizes larger. But the bigger tragedy is that for once, I can't say "I told you so."

Susan Stanton Update

2007-03-27T22:03:00.000-05:00

The hearing is final, and the city of Largo decided to fire Stanton. More here:

Largo isn't switching: Transsexual city manager must go

And some of the backlash here:

NCTE Denounces Firing of Largo City Manager

I'm in a flowcharty sort of mood, so here's my opinion once again:

IF...
You bow to pressure from a religous group...
THEN...
You are committing a crime against both God and country. Allowing one church group to govern our laws? Even if this country were 100% Christian, what makes you think all denominations would agree on the same laws? No matter which church group you favor, you're going to piss off another church group's version of God. And if you legally force people to follow your God's rules, then people are no longer worshipping Him by choice, which makes it that much harder to tell the truly religious from those who are going through the motions. The act of following God's word means nothing when it's impossible to do anything else. This country was founded on the concept of religious freedom, and we should never allow religion to influence our laws.

But let's assume you're an asshole, and like a little religion in your law...
IF...
You feel that sexual diversity should be forbidden...
THEN...
You're committing a crime against both God and your fellow human beings. Whatever happened to letting God do the judging? Why is it any of your business what goes on in someone else's bedroom? Heh, a friend of mine recently was trying to convince me that homosexuality was wrong. One of his reasons was that anal sex is gross. I can't disagree (I'm not into it either), but so what? A lot of straight couples have anal sex too. Does this mean that lesbians are even better than straight couples, religiously speaking? From the RENT soundtrack: "...Sodomy is between God and me..."

But let's assume you're a stupid bigot, and feel homosexuality is a mortal sin that should be punishable by death...
IF...
You feel that people who want sex changes are in the same category as homosexuals...
THEN...
You're committing a crime against both God and logic. What's so anti-religious about a sex change? There's a vast difference between sexual orientation and gender orientation. Homosexuality may or may not be evil, depending on your denomination, but transsexualism is more like a birth defect that needs to be fixed. And by "fixed", I mean through hormones and surgery - trying to change the brain doesn't have a history of success. One might even argue that if God put a woman's brain in a man's body, she's committing a sin by NOT doing anything about it. Maybe God gives us these challenges to overcome, so that we are stronger people in the end.

If all of the above describes you - you hate gays/transsexuals, you think laws should be based on your religious denomination, etc - then I would strongly encourage you to move to another country. Or another planet, if possible. This world has no use for you. The only people I truly hate are people who hate, and I'll bet God agrees.

Of course, I don't know if there's a God. But for an agnostic, I feel I have a lot more respect for the Great Being than a lot of born-again, church-going Christians. The God I used to know was all about love, not hate, and I try to live by His example. He was about standing up for things, not tearing things down. He was about giving people hope, not taking it away.

So if there is a God, then let Him do His job, and you do yours. His job is to decide who gets to go where in the afterlife; your job is to be nice to each other while you're here.

Susan Stanton

2007-03-20T23:13:00.000-05:00

I first read this article about Susan Stanton a couple of weeks ago:

Mayor Backs Official Undergoing Sex Change

Steve Stanton, City Manager of Largo, FL, announced that he was transgendered, and would soon start living as a woman. She had the mayor's support, and the other city officials seemed to be understanding. Overall, I thought it was a rather inspirational story. Then, just a few days later, a read a follow-up to the story. Turns out Stanton is getting booted out of office after all. There's a good (but long) article about it here:

His Second Self

It's hard to find an unbiased article, but I hear that the Largo City Commission was influenced by a very loud local church. Look, if the people vote to have her step down, it's hard to argue with that. That's democracy - the majority gets to decide, even if that majority is made up of idiots. But this is like firing someone because she's a woman. You just can't do that. Or, if you think of transgenderism as a birth defect, it's like firing someone because they're handicapped. Another bad idea.

Of course, in their minds, it's probably more like firing someone because they're gay. Uh... you really can't do that either. And if this goes through, it's going to set a lousy precedent. Stanton is facing a hearing, on "moral" charges, because of aspects of her life that have nothing to do with her ability to do her job. She is in trouble for who she is, not for anything she's done.

Transgenderism is not a choice, it's something you simply are. Yes, you can choose whether or not to cross-dress. You can choose whether or not to have the surgery. But your other self is going to come out eventually, no matter how hard you try to suppress it. You can not simply choose to be "normal". You can't choose to have a male brain any more than you can choose to be heterosexual or caucasian or naturally blonde. So while Stanton may have made the choice to start living as a woman, it wasn't really a choice at all.

But wait, the plot sickens. During the commission hearing, Florida Executive Director Nadine Smith was arrested for handing out flyers supporting Stanton. Apparently distributing the flyers was in violation of a city ordinance. Why? Well, according to this site (again, very biased, so form your own opinion), it's because flyers are supposedly a fire hazard and people can slip on them. Note, Smith wasn't throwing flyers around, she was handing them to people. If you see someone drop a flyer on the ground, you can arrest them for littering. But arresting someone for handing pieces of paper to other people? Calling it a felony? With a $5,000 bail? Where do you come up with that?

Florida's not my favorite state... it's hot, it has hurricanes, and it has trouble voting. But on the plus side, it's got more theme parks than churches, it's shaped like a giant penis, and it has birds and trees right out of Dr. Seuss. So I guess I can give or take Florida. But Largo... you're on my list. In big bold letters, right between Paul McHugh and Jack Chick. Heck, I might even forget about Jack Thompson for a while; there's bigger fish to fry.

It must be nice to be religious. You can say the most outrageous things, and then just say, "Well, God said so." You can hate anyone you want, just call them a blasphemer. You can claim that women shouldn't have the same rights as men. If you work at it, you can even make a case for white supremecy. It must be great to be able to declare your own race/sex/beliefs to be superior to all others, and then justify your claims by saying, "It says so right here in the good book!"

If you would like to show your support for Susan Stanton, here's her e-mail address: sstanton@largo.com

If you would like to complain to Largo's commissioners, here's their collective e-mail address: Commission@largo.com

Or if you'd rather call, here's the number for Largo City Hall: (727) 587-6700

Hasta La Vista

2007-02-20T08:51:00.000-06:00

The good: A couple of weeks ago, I got a new computer!
The bad: It came pre-loaded with Microsoft Vista!
The ugly: Now I can't get onto the internet!

So, if I don't blog as much for a while, that's partly why. I'm just waiting until a certain driver gets updated for Vista, or until I think of a better network configuration for our house. Whichever comes first.

Most people I know, especially online, are extreme Microsoft-bashers. But I've yet to see the company commit any sins that other companies wouldn't do if they had the chance. Most companies will use whatever means neccessary to make as large a profit as possible; some are just more successful than others. Call it jealousy or fear, but people in general just hate large corporations. Personally, I don't care one way or another. Have one company with a million jobs, or a million companies with one job each, it's all the same to me.

That being said, right about now I'd like to take Bill Gates and install Vista where the sun don't shine.

Boys And Their Toys

2007-01-30T15:32:00.000-06:00

Warning, this is another Transgender-related blog. It also covers ground I've covered before, in a much earlier blog.

My brother was recently in town for our Grandfather's funeral, and he showed me photo of me as a kid, holding a couple of Barbies. I don't know the context of the photo. I know I'm at my grandparents' house, but I don't know the occasion. I don't think I ever actually owned any Barbie dolls, so I would imagine that my cousins must have been there as well. So it was probably Christmas Eve or something.

But the picture still made me think about my childhood, and how I would play. Well, it was already on my mind, ever since KJ's Transgender-related blog on 1/11, which I countered in my own blog on 1/13. But, the discovery of the picture gave me something tangible to wrap my brain around. Of course, the picture proves nothing. I don't know the context, and even if I did, it's one isolated incident. Heck, it's probably posed: "Here, Matt, hold these and smile, it'll make a funny picture". But the expression on my face (as opposed to the "Ew, Barbie!" face some boys would have shown), somehow validates some of my feelings. At least it does to me.

Thinking back, I showed plenty of signs that I wasn't destined to be masculine. But without hearing my thought processes at the time, these signs were dismissed as things that all boys do. Do I think I was the only little boy to pick up a Princess Leia figure? Of course not. But when a lot of boys play, the action figures themselves are just instruments to shoot at each other. My play was more like that of an actor, and I was always looking at my character's motivation. I usually picked female figures because I identified with them. My play style was sometimes similar to the way girls play with Barbie dolls. Sometimes the characters wouldn't even get around to fighting, because what I did was more like a soap opera.

Overall, though, it depended on who I was playing with. Some specific memories:

CB:
I can't remember exactly when this happened, probably around the third grade. My next-door neighbor ("CB") and I were about to play Voltron. I was the one who had suggested Voltron. And the truth was, I didn't care about Voltron itself, I just wanted to play as Princess Allura. There were a lot of times when I was more interested in "being" a character than in playing itself. Usually I didn't think about the fact that these characters were usually female. But sometimes I would avoid using female characters around certain friends, because I knew they'd make fun of me. CB was a couple of years younger than me, but I was still afraid of how he would react to my playing Allura.

So, I made it look like I was having difficulty deciding which of the five characters I wanted to pick. I had him run through the cast list, while I gave fake reasons that I didn't want to be that character.

CB: "Keith?" Me: "No, he's a jerk."
CB: "Lance?" Me: "No, he's boring."
CB: "Hunk?" Me: "No, he's fat."
CB: "Pidge?" Me: "No, he's a dork."
CB: "Allura?" Me: "No, she's a girl."

I'm probably not remembering all my answers correctly, but it really doesn't matter. All the reasons were lies; I wanted it to look like none of the characters were appealing to me, so I could work my way into picking Allura without it seeming like I specifically wanted to pick her. Next, I pretended to play "Eenie-meenie-miny-moe" to pick my character, faking the outcome so I could be Allura. I was still embarrassed to play her that day, though. I didn't speak much, and we just got in our imaginary lion-bots and blasted aliens. CB even made a comment about how quiet I was. The truth was, I was afraid that he had figured out that I had wanted to play Allura. Suddenly I wasn't sure if I should speak in a female voice. Not that my voice was terribly masculine at the time, but I did try to sound more girly if I was playing a girl.

JS:
JS was my best friend for many years. Around the third grade or so, sometime after "Return of the Jedi" anyway, we started playing "Bounty Hunters". The Bounty Hunters were Boba Fett, Boushh (the figure was Princess Leia in Boushh disguise, but we considered Boushh to be a character of her own), Snake-Eyes (from GI Joe), and Lamprey (also from GI Joe - a generic Hydrofoil pilot; he only got picked because one of us thought he had a neat costume).

I would play Boushh, and JS would be Boba Fett. When we played, our plots were a lot closer to "Moonlighting" than "Star Wars". And here's the thing, even though Boba Fett was my favorite Star Wars character, I was the one who insisted that JS play him. Because I didn't actually want to be Boba Fett, so much as I wanted to date him.

We played the same plots over and over, with different twists. We'd play Boba and Boushh meeting each other. Boba wouldn't realize at first that Boushh was a female. Boushh would hide that fact because she didn't think a female bounty hunter would get as much respect. At some point in the game, Boba would find out her secret. We loved playing out that part for some reason. How would he find out this week? Would they fall in love this time? These are some of my fondest childhood memories, and I don't say that lightly. When adulthood overwhelms me, and I fantasize about being a kid again (as everyone does sometime or another), "Bounty Hunters" is one of my safe places.

SO:
Another friend, probably around fourth grade. "SO" was smart and creative, but he didn't have much respect for girls. When I brought out a female GI Joe figure to play with, he questioned why I wasted money on her, and he wondered why they even made female figures. I remember when we were playing Bounty Hunters, we took some cardboard and made a headquarters for our action figures. It had a command room, a garage, and even living quarters. I went into a lot of detail, including making beds, putting pictures on the walls, etc. SO kept questioning why I was wasting valuable time on those details. After all, "it's not a dollhouse, it's a base! We're not going to play them sleeping!"

But of course, SO had a more aggressive play style than JS. JS and I had all sorts of uses for beds, bathrooms, and anything else that would make the base more realistic. And that's probably why, overall, I ended up being better friends with JS than SO. With JS, I could be myself, in a way that just didn't work with any of my other friends.

The Obligatory Star Wars Blog

2007-01-29T08:49:00.000-06:00

I figured that if I didn't post at least one "Star Wars"-related blog, they'd revoke my geek license. For the past couple of weeks, KJ and I have been re-watching the Star Wars movies. Even though we didn't make it a one-day marathon, it's still the first time we'd watched the entire series in sequential order. And we hadn't seen any Star Wars movies since Episode III was still in the theaters, well over a year ago. To non-Starwoids, this might not seem like that long a time. But to people like us, going that long without Star Wars is blasphemy.

When each Prequel hit the theater, many die-hard Star Wars fans felt betrayed and angry. Lucas didn't write it exactly the way some fans would have. Lucas left out things that some fans wanted to see. Whine whine whine, gripe gripe gripe. Some fans were so pissed off at Episode I, that they only saw Episode II twice on opening day. It's quite funny to see someone spend all day standing in line, waiting to be the first person to buy a ticket for Episode III, and seeing him pass the time by complaining about how badly Episode II sucked.

I had complaints too, but the damage has been done, and time heals all wounds. This time I was able to watch the Prequel trilogy with fresh eyes, and see them for what they were, not what they weren't. I was able to look at them more objectively, both as Star Wars movies, and as ordinary Sci-Fi/Fantasy movies.

And I've got to say, the Prequels have been judged way too harshly. Just like the original trilogy, the prequels are fun, pretty, imaginative, and action-filled. They aren't serious movies, and they should not be judged as such. The classic trilogy wasn't serious either; it was the rabid fans who made Star Wars out to be more than it really was. Lucas set out to make an homage to the old, campy serials. It was the fans who tried to turn that into serious sci-fi.

It's hard not to take them seriously. Most of us geeks have been watching the original trilogy over and over since we were younglings. Movies like that become a part of you. Not in the trite "I laughed, I cried, it became a part of me" sense, but I mean, movies like that help form and shape your mind. Questioning the perfection of Star Wars is like questioning other aspects of your personality. Do I really enjoy video games? Yes. Do I really like denim jackets? Yes. Did Han shoot Greedo first? Yes.

And that's why we're so resistent to change. Fans have seen Greedo get shot so many times, that the scene has gelled in their heads. It's simply fact now. They're as sure of it as they're sure of gravity, Abraham Lincoln, and microwave burritos. So when George came along with the "Special Editions" that changed facts around a little, it broke many a fan's basic understanding of the universe. But it was good that George did that, because it softened the blow for the Prequels.

When the first Star Wars movie came out in 1977, it was groundbreaking; there just wasn't anything like at the time. It paved the way for mass-market space fantasy. So when "Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace" was released in 1999, fans were ready for the Second Coming of Christ. Would Lucas be able to do it again? Expectations were impossible to live up to, which made the disappointment all the worse. Yeah, Jar Jar was annoying. So? He wasn't the movie, he was the comic relief. If you don't like it, then don't laugh. And sure, Jake Lloyd couldn't act. Got news for ya, most kids his age can't act. Sure there's exceptions (Osmet, Fanning, and those lifelike robots they build for those Welch's commercials), but for the most part, you have to judge kids on a different scale.

You can complain all day about midichlorians, but there's really no reason to. The fact that Lucas rationalized a way to gauge how force-sensitive a Jedi is, in no way lessens the mystical coolness of the Force itself. Really, the worst sin committed by Episode I is that it's a bit boring. With only a couple of really great action scenes, it just doesn't stand up to repeated viewings. No, wait, the worst sin committed by Episode I is that it has a fart joke. I could have done without that.

You know how when you really expect something to be bad, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy? I personally believe that by the time "Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones" hit the theaters, Star Wars fans had already decided that the Prequels were going to suck. That's the only explanation I can come up with. Just like Phantom Menace, I saw it on opening night, and the crowd loved every minute of it. When the final credits rolled, I said, "Thank God, that'll satisfy the critics. Lucas has made up for the first one."

So naturally I was floored when I started visiting Star Wars message boards, and found out that this one was just as unpopular. I could understand the flaws they'd found in Episode I, but this time I knew George had a hit. Which is not to say I don't see the flaws, I just don't think the bad outweighed the good this time.

Okay, fine, Hayden isn't a very good actor. What's worse, he tends to drag down the performances of those around him. Natalie Portman isn't bad, but her scenes with Hayden make her look brain-dead. The love story isn't very well-written, which was a great disappointment to those hoping for another Han/Leia dynamic. And oh, this time the comic relief consists of bad C3P0 puns - not nearly as painful as watching Jar Jar bump into things, in my opinion.

So yeah, there is some stuff to dislike, but where else are you going to see an army of lightsaber-swinging Jedi battle insect people and space robots? And if that sounds cheesy to you, let me remind you that the title of the movie is "Attack of the Clones"... Shakespeare enthusiasts look elsewhere. It's still a delight watching Palpatine play two armies against each other for his own political gain, and watching Yoda kick ass is just plain fun.

Now, "Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith" was exceptionally good. Almost "Classic Trilogy" good, and that's really saying something. Yeah, Hayden still can't act, but we're used to it by this point. And even Palpatine chews up the scenery a little bit, in the scenes right after his face gets melted. That disappointed me - up until that point, he had been the best actor in the trilogy. But for a few minutes in Episode III, he reminds me of the type of villain you'd see in a "Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers" episode. And why did Lucas feel the need to melt Palpatine's face in the first place? I'd always assumed his face got that way through years of channelling the evil of the Dark Side. I really didn't need this explanation.

But a few gripes do not destroy a movie. As much as there was to dislike, there was a lot more to love. And yet, I've still seen a lot of websites that flat-out say, "The Prequels were stupid." Now, let's be serious here. The prequels are very different from each other, and yet share a lot of similarities with the Classic Trilogy. If you can honestly tell me that you hate all three Prequels, but love all three of the Classic Trilogy, then I've got some sad news for you. You don't really like Star Wars at all, and every bit of passion you think you have for the Classic Trilogy, is really just nostalgia. Or maybe it's the other way around, and every bit of hatred you have for the Prequels is just pettyness.

If you had never seen any of the Star Wars movies in your life, then you decided to watch all six in a row right now, I seriously doubt you'd come back saying, "I hated 1-3, but loved 4-6." You might like four of them, or two of them, or one Prequel and two Classics, or some other odd combination. But those of you who think that the Classics are God, and the Prequels are manure - you're just fooling yourselves. My advice? Do what we did. Spend a year or two without Star Wars, then watch all six in a row. Then maybe, just maybe, you'll be able to figure out how you really feel.

Btw, the same goes for those of you who hate the "Special Editions" of 4-6. Yeah, sure, George screwed up your childhood memories a litte. But if you'd just get past that, you'd realize that they really are superior versions of the movies. You can argue all day about whether Han shot Greedo first, but you'd be missing the point. Those are tiny details of an epic legend, the kind of things that change each time the story is retold. The beauty of the Special Edition DVDs is that they look like the Prequel trilogy.

I specify "DVDs" because the Special Editions are much improved now from when they were released in the theaters in the late 90s. In fact, when I saw the Special Editions in the theaters, as much as I liked them, even I thought they were sort of gimmicky, and the new stuff stood out too much from the old stuff. Not so much with the DVD releases. Every frame is bright and colorful, (nearly) every special effect is realistic. When you watch all six in a row, it's much harder to distinguish the older ones from the newer, giving the entire series a uniform look.

The Prequels and Special Editions disappointed a lot of people, but what's done is done. If you let yourself forget the quibbles, and stop obsessing over how you thought the movies should have been written, then you'll find that it's a fun set of movies. I remember after Episode I came out, I saw an online petition where people were trying to get George Lucas not to direct the other two. In fact, fans were trying to get Peter Jackson to direct II and III. Now, I love the "Lord of the Rings" movies nearly as much as Star Wars. But this is the same LOTR Trilogy in which Samwise excretes the line, "I can't carry it for you... but I... can carry... you!" Clearly one of the cheesiest scenes in cinema history, but we love it anyway. Why? Because at that point, we're so sucked into the movie, that cheesiness whizzes right over our heads. Star Wars is no different. If you let yourself get sucked in, you'll have a great time.

My Grandfather's Obituary

2007-01-24T08:40:00.000-06:00

From today's Tennessean:

John Astor BROWN
Davidson
Age 90
January 22, 2007
Age 90 of Nashville, January 22, 2007. Preceded in death by his wife, Lorraine Brown; son, David Brown. Survived by daughters, Rosemary (Charles) Burdeshaw, Sara (Roger) West, Kathleen (Stanley) Bright; 5 grandchildren; 9 great-grandchildren; 1 sister and brother; several nieces and nephews.

After retirement from Brown Dental Laboratory, Mr. Brown was active in acting, owned J.B's Hot Stuff, Pepper Shop. His last employment up to four months prior to his death, he worked as a driver for Tennessee Auto Auction.

Funeral service to be conducted 1130 a.m. Friday, January 26, 2007 with Rev. Charles Burdeshaw officiating. Interment to follow in Woodlawn Memorial Park, with family and friends to serve as Pallbearers. In lieu of flowers, contributions may be made to Alive Hospice. Visitation with the family will be 2-4 and 6-8 p.m. Thursday, and one hour prior to the service on Friday. HIBBETT & HAILEY FUNERAL HOME, 429 Donelson Pike, 615-883-2361; A Dignity Memorial Provider.

Jane, You Ignorant Slut.

2007-01-13T11:11:00.000-06:00

I really don't want to do this... First off, contrary to what you might think, I try to keep my transgender-related posts to a minimum. You don't need to read my whiny rants about how I wish I could look cuter in a skirt; it's a waste of your time and mine. Plus, I feel like I'm about to cross a line here...
It's like this. My dear, lovely, brilliant, beautiful wife KJ recently posted a blog, in which she explains her feelings on my transgenderism (or lack thereof). It is well-written and smart, as is everything she writes. But of course it also disagrees with pretty much everything I believe.

So, now I face a dilemma... let it go? Respond in public? Reply directly to her blog, or post a counter-blog of my own? Do people really want to read our arguments? If I respond, will it solve anything, or will it just escalate? And why should I sit down and type this out in my blog, when I can just say it to her? What's the point of writing a long, pointless post, when she's six feet away from me watching TV on the couch?

I guess I knew all along I'd have to put this on my blog. For one thing, I don't want to muddy up KJ's blog with petty bickering. Her page is hers, and I don't want to post anything negative on it. But I do need to make a mark somewhere, partly because it's cathartic, and partly because I've already had one friend e-mail me asking for my counter-arguments. I could answer him privately, but this way I can let everyone know at once.

If this turns into a long-running debate, so be it. I will happily play Demosthenes to KJ's Locke, if for no other reason than that I like to argue. But I'd rather this post be the end of it. KJ and I are generally mature when it comes to our disputes, and "agreeing to disagree" is one of the things we do best.

Note, don't read any further until you've read her blog. If you can't access her blog for some reason, let me know. I'll be doing a bit of snipping here and there to quote her, and I don't want KJ to look stupid because of something taken out of context.

Here goes nothing.

>>> WARNING: This is not a happy fun blog. This is also not meant for those who are easily offended, not secure enough with themselves to make mature, adult comments, or too young to take immature coarse language. This is not anything to curse me or praise me but what is on my mind at this point.

*** Actually, there's very little in it I found offensive. "There ain't no good guys, there ain't no bad guys, there's only you and me, and we just disagree." I do think the title's a little misleading, though... you spend most of your blog arguing whether or not I'm transgendered, and don't actually get to your "views on transgenderism" in general until the last couple of paragraphs.

>>> My husband is an absolutely brilliant man who could be anything he/she wants to be and that includes a woman. The whole thing boils down to this--just because he could be a woman does not mean he IS.

*** Of course not. I don't believe I've ever used that argument. Heck, I could be a bowling pin impersonator if I wanted to. Means nothing.

>>> I will not stop him from pursuing what he wants. Its not part of who I am but that does not mean that I have to agree. He acts as though I do not understand what is like to feel lost and unsure of yourself. He seems to think that I have never had to become my own person, separate from what my parents and peers have taught me. I like to think I kept some of the better parts to offset the bad habits instilled upon me by genetics and breeding.

*** I never claimed you haven't gone through anything like this. If I honestly thought I was the only one in the world to ever face an identity crisis, I probably really would shoot myself.

>>> However, he is not the first person to go through a crisis of conscience, to stop believing in everything because it just didn't quite turn out the way it should have. The one thing everyone learns and keeps learning is life is not fair, life is not predictable and bad things happen to good people. He is not the only person to look back at his life and say, "oops." I do think that his intellect has submarined him.

*** This is where you start to part from reality. Your idea - that life was turning out badly, so I invented another one - has no basis in fact. While it had been building for years, the day I actually had my epiphany was hardly one of our darkest days. Yes, my father had recently passed away, I'll give you that one. But that was about it. The other factors you mention - money, your miscarriages, etc - just weren't factors at the time. We are talking about a time when, while I was still technically in mourning, overall I was fairly happy. We were doing pretty well financially, I hadn't thought about the miscarriages in a very long time, and so on.

In fact, one of the biggest tragedies about all of this is that we were so happy. It's as if I was waiting for things to settle down - for us to get caught up on bills, etc, before I decided to throw a wrench in the works. Your "failure as a man" theory might have made sense back when we lived in Bowling Green, but I'm rather proud of the progress we've made since then.

>>> My darling hubby seems to be a text-book example. It is interesting to note that the more he reads, the more he "realizes," the more text-book he becomes. That is already a flag for most first-year psychology students.

*** On principle I can't disagree. It's a common phenomenon, and not limited to psychology. Someone picks up a book of diseases, starts thumbing through the pages, and they're sure they have every one of them. "Let's see, symptoms... 'vomiting'... well, I did feel like I was going to throw up the other day... 'pale skin'... yep, I haven't had much of a tan this winter... 'unusual sweating'... yeah, I was pretty sweaty after my aerobics this morning... I must have a deadly disease!" People do that, and it's not always just the hypochondriacs.

But you have me in a catch-22. If I were to walk around saying, "I'm a girl, I'm a girl", without doing any research, you'd say I had no idea what I was talking about. But when I actually do the research, you use your "first-year psychology student" cop-out. You've got me trapped to where there's simply no way to prove anything to you.

>>> Even laymen eventually come to realize that when dealing with the individual a text-book case is a rare thing. There is a guideline, there are examples with similarity, but to be down the line text-book is very unusual and highly suspicious.

*** Again, catch-22. Before, whenever you found ways that I differed from the "textbook example", you used them to tell me why I wasn't transgendered. Now you think I fit the textbook case too well. So what you're saying is, before you had too little proof, and now you have too much proof? What is the exact amount of proof you need to believe something?

It's moot anyway. As far as I'm concerned, it's not about "proof". When I list "symptoms" from my childhood, like how I would often pick female characters when playing GI Joe with my friends, you dismiss them because "all little boys do that now and then". In fact, most examples I could give - most examples ANY transperson could give - could be dismissed as something lots of boys do. I mean, everybody tries on Mommy's shoes sooner or later.

But the proof means NOTHING. If I couldn't list a single example of how I fit the profile, I would still know that I feel female inside. If my list of childhood memories was nothing but NASCAR races and NFL games, I would still know that I'd rather be a woman.

>>> Hubby is brilliant and can put himself in any situation or on either side of any argument. What happens if you are putting yourself into an argument and you don't know yourself enough to separate who you are from what the topic is? You become Spock doing a mind-meld with Nomad, "We are Nomad. We are Nomad."

*** Well, I am a master debater. But are you trying to tell me that the fact that I'm good at arguing, somehow proves that what I argue is wrong? I can see how it would give my arguments less weight, sure. But that doesn't make me flat-out wrong.

>>> I say because he was searching for answers he found one that was as close to getting away from his old life as possible.

*** And I submit that I love my old life, and want to change as little as possible. I'm not even trying to "change" myself, so much as "find" myself. The fact that I like my life is reason I've been able to stay this way for such a long time. Some transfolk are from broken homes, had difficult school lives, were beaten and humiliated for being different, and so on. I'm sure such people can't wait to break out and establish their own identities. I had a great childhood, and I have many happy memories. Between playing female characters with friends, and living vicariously through characters in the comics I drew, I had some outlets for my femininity. Enough to keep me from questioning my happiness, anyway. I believe that this is one reason it took me so long to become dissatisfied with my identity - I just had too many reasons to be happy.

> 1.) He is effeminate.

*** And your point is, being effeminate doesn't mean you're transgendered. I totally agree.

> 2.) He hates males in general

*** I say that a lot, but it's really not true. I like men just fine. What I don't like is MEN. I trust I don't need to spell this one out for you, but what I don't like is manly, chauvinistic, muscle-headed he-men who only care about sports, cars, and sex. I suppose the opposite would be empty-headed girlie-girls who don't care about anything but nails, clothes, and makeup. I can't say I like those either, but I don't mind being around them nearly as much as the men I mentioned.

The reason I hold a particular grudge for manly-men is the fact that I've had so many negative experiences from being around them. The girlie-girls are at best entertaining, and at worst offensive to my intelligence. But the manly-men actually scare me - it's guys like these that beat up people like me. It's cause-and-effect time. They sensed my femininity, they made fun of me, I stopped liking them. You seem to think it's the other way around - that I disliked them first, then made myself feminine so I wouldn't be like them.

>>> I don't think the concept of its okay to like pink and have a dick was ever explained to him until there was just no way he could accept it as true.

*** Please. My entire childhood was an esteem-building excercise. "Different is better" has been my mantra since, well, since before I knew the word "mantra". Yet another reason I came out to myself so late in life: I always knew I was "different", and I was comfortable with that. What wasn't explained to me was that "wanting to be a girl" was okay. In fact, it was specifically explained to me that "wanting to be a girl" was a very bad thing that would cause the ground to open beneath my feet, dropping me straight to Hell. So if you're looking for a good example from my formative years, that might be one to examine.

>>> 3.) Low self-esteem

*** Comes and goes; probably the same with everyone. Having a poor view of one's identity is no ego booster, but this is another one of those "chicken-or-the-egg" scenarios. The hard part is, you don't even know what you think you know. I don't even know myself that well. I've been wearing masks since I was a child, and I'm so used to them, that I don't always know when I have them on. If I look like I'm on an ego trip, it's probably because I'm kicking myself inside for doing something stupid. If I look like I've lost the will to live, it's probably because I'm proud of myself and don't want to look like a show-off. This might make me seem a bit deceitful, but when you've been told that one of your core personality traits is a mortal sin, you too might decide you want to be harder to read.

>>> Where is the line drawn for reality, for the quantitative data that cannot be changed and must be accepted? In this day and age it gets smaller and smaller. Welcome to the world of plastic surgery!! Think you should have been born with horns and a tail because you know, just absolutely know, you are the prince of darkness? Do you have the money? Just step right up and we'll check it out! You say you have at least five people who truly believe you are the prince of darkness or that you should have been born with perfectly white razor sharp teeth? Have you acted like you have razor sharp teeth? Do you have the money? Oh you're a bird man too!! Where should we put the feathers exactly, please pay the girl on you way out. Enjoy your new life disco duck; you'll get just about as much respect and prestige.

*** Well, arguably, the Prince of Darkness should have the power to make these changes without having to resort to surgery. And if not, well, he's probably better off keeping his ability to blend in with the crowd.

The line you question is drawn by psychologists. Remember psychology, that subject you once majored in? A person who believes he is the Prince of Darkness has serious mental issues, which ought to be addressed before he gets any surgery. And hey, guess what, transpeople DO go through therapy first (assuming they follow the rules). The irony is, that I could probably walk into the plastic surgeon's office right now and have horns by the end of the day. Depressing, but true. But unlike the delusion that you are the devil (or a bird), transgenderism is a real, psychologically accepted condition, and yet it's incredibly difficult to be allowed the surgery that corrects it.

And why are you so focused on the surgery, anyway? You understand that's the very LAST step, and one that not every transperson even takes. Your mind is who you are. A woman born in a man's body IS a woman. She was born a woman, and she will die a woman, regardless of whether she ever gets the surgery. If it makes her happy, and her therapist is sure she won't regret it later, what's the downside? Typically, by that time she gets the surgery, she's already gone through all the tragedies that would "ruin" her life. She is required to live as a woman for at least a year first. During that time, she will have already lost any friends/family/jobs that this condition will cause her to lose. When the time comes around for the actual surgery, that's just something that makes her feel more complete.

What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar?

2007-01-04T20:17:00.000-06:00

A friend of mine has informed me that some of my recent posts might be offensive to stupid people. To any stupid people reading this, please accept my heartfelt apology... but you might just want to avoid my blog from now on.

A lot of my rants of late have centered around my own bias against organized religion. This is probably unfair of me. Growing up, I was always ready to defend Christianity. A lot of the other kids thought of me as the "holier-than-thou" type. Even after college, I had a reputation as a teetotaler. I can't really pin down exactly when I changed; some of it was gradual, but there were some obvious spikes in there.

Some of my family would probably blame KJ for "corrupting" me, and I don't doubt that she was a factor. But I honestly think I've been a bigger influence on her than the other way around. Personally, I would give more credit to a friend I met online, who for anonymity's sake I'll call "BH". I could tell early on that this guy was the smartest person that I had ever met, either online or off. BH was the type of person who wouldn't open his mouth unless he had completely researched everything about the subject. I'm not saying he was infallible, but he definitely possessed a powerful combination of education, wisdom, and common sense.

And yet he was an athiest. I didn't once think about trying to convert him. I knew that there was no point I could make that he wouldn't be able to counterpoint. But at the same time, he didn't try to convert me either. BH didn't mind his friends being religious. He did draw the line at absolute Creationists - he felt that those ideas (Earth only being 6000 years old, created in six days, etc) were so silly that only a complete idiot would believe them. Luckily I was never that type of Creationist, and it didn't bother him at all that I considered myself a Christian.

But without even trying, he planted a seed in my mind. It wasn't any particular thing he said, but rather the simple fact that he was so smart and rational, and yet an athiest. For the first time in my life, I realized that it was okay to be an athiest. Well, not "athiest" specifically, so much as I realized it was okay to have your own beliefs. You don't have keep the beliefs you grew up with. You don't have to believe something just because your parents and grandparents believed it.

"Duh", you say. Of course I always knew it was okay to believe what you want. But there's more than one level of knowing something. For instance, I might have felt it was okay for people to have their own beliefs, but I never thought it was okay for me to have my own beliefs.

So I went agnostic. It wasn't a major life change or anything. Generally speaking, my beliefs didn't change much.

Before: I thought all recreational drugs should be illegal.
After: I still think drugs are for the stupid, but it should be legal for people to make their own mistakes.

Before: I felt that abortion was murder and should be illegal.
After: I still think abortion is a very bad thing, but sometimes unwanted pregnancies destroy even more lives.

Before: I felt premarital sex was evil.
After: I still feel that you should limit your sexual partners, and never sleep with anyone you don't think you'd marry. But that's just a "should", not a "you're going to Hell."

Before: I didn't want to push my religion on to others, so when someone offended me, I just got quiet.
After: It's a lot harder to offend me, but I'm still just naturally quiet.

While I was no longer actively worshipping God, I still defended religion. I didn't suddenly decide that all Christians were idiots, nor did I try to tell anyone else what to believe. I still believed that by and large, religion was a good thing, and that some people needed religion in order to keep themselves in check. Some people were naturally good people, while others required the fear of God to keep their natural selfish tendencies from taking over.

I would have defended religion to my dying day, whether I was in it or not. So what changed? When was that "magic moment" when I decided that Christians had gone too far? I don't know, exactly. Well, no doubt my transgenderism played a big part in it. I've now had greater exposure to a segment of the population that is often persecuted by religion. But even when I was religious, I knew that sometimes people went too far "in the name of God", so that opinion hasn't changed much.

So, I'm trying to figure out exactly why I've developed a chip on my shoulder lately. Forgetting my world-issues, I'm specifically trying to list ways religion has hurt me personally. Here's what I've come up with so far:

1. My realizations about my sexual identity. When I was a kid, I thought that the word "gay" meant, "a guy who wishes he was a girl." I had been told time and time again that being gay was wrong. So whenever I had thoughts about wanting to be a girl, I pushed them out of my head. Those thoughts were the work of the Devil, and would send me straight to Hell. If it weren't for religion, I might have figured myself out a lot earlier in life. Granted, if society as a whole had understood as much then as it almost does now, then I might have been better off. Gender Dysphoria is completely different from homosexuality; it's more like a birth defect. And as such, it's slightly more likely to be acceptable to homophobic Christians. But I was just a kid then, at a time when even adults were confused about the subject.

2. Dungeons & Dragons. In the past few years I've developed a love for role-playing games. I would have liked to have played them with my friends as a child. There's one childhood friend in particular who probably would have loved to play D&D... except his parents wouldn't allow it. D&D was the subject of a lot of several urban legends, and my friend's family firmly believed them. There was that one where the kid played D&D then jumped out a window, which was just an evolved version of the story where the kid puts on a Superman cape and tries to fly. Not to mention a precursor to the one where the kid watches Harry Potter and jumps out a window holding a broomstick (*). If kids were really as stupid as the ones in these legends, nobody would reach adulthood.

(* Before anyone tries to correct me on the Harry Potter thing, yes, I do know there really was a child who got hurt playing with a broomstick. But that child was much younger than the kids typically are in the legends, and she fell off the kitchen counter (the legends have them jumping off of rooves or out of windows), and I'm not convinced she actually thought the broomstick would make her fly. But in addition to that true story, an urban legend also circulated that was much more similar to the D&D/Superman legends. )

But forgetting the legends for a minute, D&D was considered evil for other reasons too. Magic, demons, and other anti-Christian themes. But seriously, it's based on mythology, not religion. You might fight made-up evil gods, but you never fight Satan. And even if you did, I'm not sure how that would make it anti-Christian, since the players are (usually) fighting on the side of good. Is there something in the Bible about not making up stories? Because that's all the game is - a group of creative friends sitting around a table, making up a story. If that's wrong, then so is the entire fiction section of your local bookstore.

3. Censoring myself to my wishy-washy friends. The only thing worse than a friend who has just discovered Jesus, is one who goes through cycles of piety and hedonism. A few years ago, I received a phone call from a long-lost friend. We talked for about 10 minutes before I realized he was currently in Saint mode. Once I knew, I thought back to the things I'd been saying over the past few minutes, and counted how many times I'd probably offended him. But, I swear this guy switched back and forth every week. And while I am loathe to censor myself, I do try to be sensitive to others when I'm speaking. It would be nice if people came with ratings labels. You'd look at a person, see he's wearing a "PG-13" T-shirt, and you'd adjust your conversational topics accordingly. Wait, no, actually it would be nice if people just weren't so easily offended. But I've already done that rant.

5. Censorship in general. I don't mind keeping adult materials away from kids, but I hate it when they outright ban something because someone thought it was offensive. Off the top of my head, I can't think of too many ways this has affected me personally. Removing the blood from the SNES version of Mortal Kombat kind of pissed me off at the time. I vaguely remember hearing about an irreverent animated sitcom I wanted to see, which got cancelled because of a letter-writing campaign from a small church group in Ohio or somewhere. There was a time in Kentucky when KJ and I weren't allowed to receive the "Adam & Eve" mail-order catalog because it violated some local law.

I could probably list a lot more examples of how censorship almost affected me, like when Married With Children nearly got taken off the air, but in most cases smarter heads have prevailed.

6. The assumptions of others. When you live in the Bible Belt, people don't ask, "Do you go to church?", they ask "What church do you go to?" ...which leads to a lot of awkward silences. And every office has that one employee who forwards every sappy religious e-mail they receive, assuming that all the recipients will be overjoyed to have their inbox clogged up with these made-up stories of miracles (punctuated by animated gifs of wide-eyed puppies). Then there's the people who mix politics and religion. Terrorists commit horrible acts in the name of their gods, while our country's Christians shake their heads and say, "poor misguided fools"... completely failing to make the connection.

That's really about all I can come up with right now, but I think it's enough to explain my grudges. Now I have to ask myself a lot of questions.

Do my own experiences justify my bias against religion?
Do the global issues I've studied justify my prejudices?
When I pick on Christians for being bigots, am I being just as bigoted as the people I condemn?

The truth is, I probably have gone too far. Ranting is a great way to work out my frustrations, but it does sound like I'm judging all religious people by the actions of a few. And deep down, I don't really feel that way. I stand by everything I've said, but - Keep in mind, when I rant on Christians and other religious people, I really don't mean "all Christians" or "everyone who believes in a god". If I felt that way, I would consider myself an athiest, not agnostic. I'm specifically talking about that subgroup of believers who commit the sins I've listed.

So before anyone sends me hate mail, just remember - Right now you're probably one of those Christians I support (or at least tolerate). But by complaining, you're being easily offended and trying to censor me. And if you do that, you're placing yourself into the very categories I've been insulting. Sure, it's a catch-22, but that's my bottom line.

The Truth About Matts and Dogmas

2006-12-26T14:51:00.000-06:00

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." -Mahatma Gandhi

Disclaimer: It is not my place to convince anyone that their religion is wrong. If your faith is shaky, I'd prefer you didn't read this. Nor do I want you to read this if you're going to retaliate by trying to convert me to your religion/denomination/cult/wireless plan. I was raised Christian, I've read the Good Book from cover to cover, I've studied it in countless Bible classes, and I've attended service in at least five different churches. And in my experience, I usually know more scripture than most of the Christians who try to convert me.

If there is a god, then I thank him very much for my existence. Which is pretty appreciative, I'd say, considering how much time I spend wishing I'd never been born. I consider myself agnostic, which means that I try to keep an open mind, and I don't rule anything out. Considering how much humans have learned about the universe just in my lifetime alone, it would be complete idiocy to rule out anything at this point, including the concept of a supreme being.

But I can't believe in a god whose doctrines would advocate cruelty for my fellow human beings, or one who would condemn people to eternal pain just because of the way they were born. I can't believe in a god who would sculpt something as artistic and beautiful as the human body, and then tell us it's a sin to see it. I can't believe in a god who would tell his followers, "don't think for yourselves, just read my book and follow it word-for-word, because after all, thinking too much gives you wrinkles." And I flat-out refuse to consider a god whose average followers are as mind-bogglingly stupid as the ones I see here in the Bible Belt.

It's not that I require proof of God's existence. I understand that believing in God is a test of faith. However, there's dozens of religions/sects/denomination/etc that say the same thing: "You have to take us on faith." What, do I just throw a dart and pick one at random? "Take it on faith" is a cop-out, pure and simple. It's a way of saying, "We've got nothing to go on but the beliefs of people who lived 2000 years ago, and articles that were written before science had been discovered. But... but... but... that's our proof! Since our religion is based on faith, then the fact that there's no proof is proof in itself! In fact, God took away all the proof on purpose, just so he could find out who really believes in Him! Yeah, that's the ticket!"

Christianity is full of cop-outs like that. Like if someone finds a contradiction in the Bible, the nearest Christian will point out that "even the Devil can quote scripture, and will do so in an attempt to trap you." Which is cop-out-ese for, "If you find any damning mistakes in our doctrine, it must be because the Devil was making you think too much." How can you argue with that?

It's funny, with so much rationalization going on, that more Christians can't accept the idea of evolution. The two theories go right together; if anything, evolution supports the Christian bible. Both beliefs present fairly similar ideas about the order in which animals started to appear on Earth, etc. If creationists would just get past the whole "7 days" thing, and rationalize that each "day" was several million years long, and most importantly THINK, there might be fewer picket lines at our high schools.

From my POV, I really don't see any compelling difference between the Christian Bible and Greek mythology. Both use fanciful speculation to close the gaps that were waiting to be filled by science. You'd start with a mystery, like "what's the deal with that big yellow ball in the sky?" People would scratch their heads and shrug, then some egotistical Cliff Claven type would stand up and say, "Well, there's this guy named Apollo who likes to fly around in a flaming chariot..." Or he might just say, "Well, God said 'Let there be light', and then He separated light from darkness." Either way, he was just talking out of his ass, because it made him feel smarter.

In my opinion, Christians would have a lot more credibility if they would actually read their Bible, and follow it as a whole. As opposed to what they really do, which is pick out their favorite verses, misinterpret the rest, and plow their way through life doing whatever they were going to do anyway, their natural hatreds now reinforced by divine approval. Because that's how religion works - it doesn't change beliefs, it strengthens beliefs people already have, and grants assertiveness to people who really don't need to be assertive.

Why do so many people focus on certain verses? For instance, if your Bible tells you that homosexuality is a sin, then fine, believe it. But why center on it? With such a long list of sins in the Bible, many of which are committed by everyone, including you, every day, why should you single out gay people as being evil sinners, when you're just as much of an evil sinner yourself? "Let he among you who is without sin..." yada yada yada. Even if I was mentally-stunted enough to believe that homosexuality is a choice, it's not like they're actually engaging in homosexual intercourse 24 hours a day. To flat out hate them, you're condemning them for their state of being, not for their individual sins.

The Bible may or may not actually condemn the act of homosexuality (I'll save that debate for some other time), but I swear to you, sinners or not, nowhere does the Bible instruct you to HATE these people (or anyone, really). And if your copy does, then I implore you to find a new copy, a new religion, and a new brain. Possibly a new planet as well - with attitudes gradually improving, it won't be too long before homophobic rednecks are such a minority, they'll be afraid to open their mouths for fear of being beaten to death by purses. It'll be a good day.

So.....

In the interests of keeping the peace between the religious and the not-so-much-religious, to bridge the gap between different denominations (split because people found two ways to interpret a vaguely-written verse), to help the "it's-easier-to-do-whatever-my-preacher-says-than-to-think-for-myself" people get along with the "God-likes-people-who-can-think-for-themselves" crowd, and possibly to save the planet itself from total destruction, I have decided it's time to start my own religion.

Introducing... (drum roll please)...

>>> The First Church of DOYC <<<

The name "Church of Bob" was already taken, believe it or not. Anyway, for those unfamiliar with internet lingo, "DOYC" stands for "Deity Of Your Choice". In my church, you will be allowed to worship any god (or gods) you wish, or even none at all. Our sermons will preach about nice things people can do for each other. We will include inspirational stories from all sources, including the Bible, as well as the bibles of other major religions. Think of it as more like a "comparative religion" course, combined with an ethics class.

For the first few years, worship service is going to be sort of abstract. Meaning we won't actually meet, we'll just all stay home and visualize going to church. If we make enough money from our imaginary collection plates, we'll start visualizing a much larger church. Obviously the concept of "tithing" is going to be a little different in this respect. If (and only if) you can afford to give away 10% (or any amount) of your earnings, then let's just skip the middle man. Give your donation straight to charity. Preferably something to do with education. After all, what good does it do society for me to spend your donations on more comfortable pews?

Our Ten Commandments:

1. Thou Shalt Not mix religion with politics.
Morality and legality are both important entities, but should be kept seperate. Save the government for important things like murder and property theft. Things that hurt you. There's no reason to call the police because you're offended by someone else's favorite TV show. If you're so sure your neighbor's being immoral, then trust your god to handle that one in the afterlife. If you don't think your god can take care of a little matter like that, then why do you go to the trouble of believing in him? He is the "supreme being" after all. In fact, your god is probably highly offended that you think so little of him. "Hey, 911? I was peeking into my neighbor's window with a telescope, and I noticed that he's masturbating to an issue of Cat Fancy. I find this highly offensive, and I think he should be punished, but my god has a small penis and just isn't powerful enough to send this guy to Hell later. Can you send an officer over to arrest him, so I'll feel like justice has been done?"

2. Thou Shalt Not push your religious views onto other people.
If they don't want to hear it, don't make them. People will be more likely to follow your example if you're not actively trying to piss them off. Why in the world would I want to join your church, when everyone in it is obviously such an annoying prick?

3. Thou Shalt Not use religion as an excuse to hate people or groups of people.
Religion is just a more active version of philosophy, and the nature of philosophy is to question your beliefs from time to time. Philosophical disagreements are an invitation to think, not a reason to hate. Some people have a tendency to reach a certain age, and decide that they now know everything. Then when they're presented with something that challenges their set beliefs, they immediately go on the offensive.

4. Thou Shalt seek peaceful solutions to your disagreements.
If someone slaps you, turn the other cheek... then sue them. But don't get yourself in a fight just because you're afraid of looking like a sissy. For the love of DOYC, you're just going to make matters worse. What do you think's going to be solved? After a fight, the two guys still don't respect each other, only now they both have broken bones. All they did was give in to their emotions... the same thing these "macho" men constantly accuse women of doing, and try to use as "proof" that men are superior. Bottom line: People who get into fist fights are pussies.

5. Thou Shalt Not be a fuddy duddy.
I can't tell you how many times I've seen one person tell a slightly off-color joke, and then watched the nearest Christian try not to laugh. "Oh, I can't find that funny, or God'll get me." Dude, if it tickled your funny-bone, the damage has been done. Laughing isn't going to make it any worse. Have fun with life, for DOYC's sake. What fun is heaven going to be if everyone there has sticks up their asses? But this really goes back to my previous blog on "offensensitivity". If you're so easily offended that every casual conversation leaves you fuming, then you're no fun to be around. And if your friends and co-workers don't want to be around you, what makes you think God will?

6. Honor Thy Father and Mother, but not to the point where you forget they're human.
So many people pick the religion their parents worshipped. Of course, if they'd been born in the house across the street, they'd worship a different god, and would still be claiming that proof didn't matter, because they have faith. In fact, people base lots of their beliefs on that of their parents, under the assumption that they're older and wiser. Which is forgetting that their parents' beliefs are based the beliefs of their grandparents, the same grandparents who still buy them Garfield underwear for Christmas and call them by their dog's name. It amazes me how many other beliefs - not just religion - start out as, "because that's how my parents did it." Do you realize that if everyone thought this way throughout history, we still wouldn't have electricity?

And that's the type of rationalization that really makes Baby Doyc cry - everyone believes themselves to be the perfect human being, and therefore the way they were raised must be the perfect way to raise a child. I can't tell you how many times I've heard someone say, "I support child beatings. My daddy beat me every day growing up, whether I'd done anything or not." ...and I'll reply, "Yeah, but you're an asshole. I don't want my kids to grow up to be assholes." It's particularly hard growing up in areas where racism is considered acceptable. I had several friends growing up who were decent, smart kids, but whose parents were trying their damnedest to raise their children racist. Some of my visits didn't feel so much like "play dates" as they did "damage control".

7. Thou Shalt Have No Other Blogs Before Me.
because, you="" know,="" mine="" s="" best="" one="" on="" the="" internet. ="">
because,>

9. Thou Shalt Not Notice I Skipped #8.
I only have so much time on my hands. What, you think I get paid to make up commandments all day?

10. Thou Shalt not be an asshole.
This is just in case I missed anything. Basically, don't kill, steal, rape, molest, punch, kick, torture, vandalize, or incinerate anyone or anything that oughtn't be killed, stolen, raped, molested, punched, kicked, tortured, vandalized, or incinerated. Heck, most of the original Bible's laws could have been summed up as "don't be an asshole".

For your reference, here's a handy Good-to-Evil chart. Note that "well-meaning" Christians fall two notches below average citizens.

GOOD
God, Jesus, DOYC - Good-aligned deities, whether fictional or real.
Ghandi-types, Heroes, Martyrs - People who risk their lives for the sake of others.
Good Samaritans - People who donate to charities, help the downtrodden, etc, whether they do it for religious reasons or not.
Average citizens - Athiests, Agnostics, and Religious people who don't rub your face in it.
Petty Criminals - Those who would steal property, but wouldn't want to hurt other people.
"Well-meaning" Christians - Those who feel that homosexuality is evil, "immoral" should be illegal, nudity is disgusting, etc.
Hitler-types, Serial Killers, Sociopaths - People who cause pain on purpose, or have no qualms about taking human lives.
Satan, Anti-DOYC - Evil-aligned deities, whether fictional or real.
EVIL

Casino Royale

2006-12-20T08:48:00.000-06:00

Let me start by saying I'm not a huge James Bond fan. I like the movies, but they are just movies to me. The parts I tend to like are the parts that annoy Bond purists. I don't care a lick for the intrigue, the espionage, or the politics. In fact, I'm pretty much in it for the action and the gadgets. As a character, I find Bond himself to be a bit of an ass. Which I realize is part of his charm, but it really doesn't work for me. Also, Bond has a reputation for being untouchable and invincible, the type of hero who can walk out of a firefight with his tux still nice and clean. Again, that's part of the charm, but it also means there's less tension. I'm never really worried about whether the hero is going to survive; of course he'll make it, he's James Frikkin Bond!

I also haven't seen half of them. I've seen all the Pierce Brosnan ones, and "For Your Eyes Only", "Moonraker"... I'm pretty sure I've seen at least three others all the way through, including a Sean Connery one, and that one with what's-his-name, you know, George Lazerbeak or something... and bits and pieces of several others. Okay, I'm playing dumb, but the point is, Bond has always been one of those peripheral characters that I enjoy without being "into".

So why am I even reviewing this movie? Well, mostly because KJ told me to. And because overall, I really enjoyed it. It was well-written and had some great action sequences, and I never found myself bored. Which says a lot, since my aforementioned favorite Bond element - the gadgets - are nearly non-existent in this outing. Daniel Craig does a great job as a young Bond, who is already arrogent but doesn't yet have the finesse to back it up. My biggest gripe is his appearance - he looks great in the suit, sitting at the poker table, flashing that charismatic smile - but he really doesn't look young enough to be "young Bond". And I can't stand his ears. He's got a great body, though, if you're into that, and you do get to see a rather significant amount of it.

Rabid continuity-buffs will be (well, already are - I've seen some of the boards) greatly disappointed. What with it being Bond's first job, and he's already got Dame Dench as his boss - that pretty much throws the earlier Bond films out the window. There's never been much continuity between Bond films anyway, IMO, so it's not really a big loss. I mean, it's obvious that most Bond films are set in the era in which they're filmed (or Connery would have used the internet more), so it's ridiculous to think this same secret agent has remained so young for so many decades. Each Bond film (again, IMO) is meant to be enjoyed as a film by itself - that's why they're not numbered.

WJLM Factor: 15 minutes.
WJLM stands for "We Just Lost Marty", and indicates how long into the film my brother would stop watching, having decided the movie is too unrealistic. Early in the movie, there is a beautiful chase scene - on foot, through a construction site. The guy Bond is chasing must have been an Olympic gymnast before turning to a life of crime, judging by his ability to leap over walls and climb sheer surfaces. It's like watching Bond chase down Spiderman. But it's a great scene, and one that quickly pulls you into the movie.

Anyway, if you're Bond fan, then you've already seen it. If you're not, then I don't think this movie is going to change your mind about the series. But it's worth the trip to the theater, so if you've been riding the fence, go ahead and buy a ticket. I think you'll have a good time.

Offensensitivity

2006-12-13T14:58:00.000-06:00

I believe there is a direct correlation between how intelligent a person is, and how difficult it is to offend them. To put it bluntly: Stupid people are easily offended. I like this theory, mostly because it makes me look smart.

Often, people who are being offended are actually displaying cultural intolerances. For example: Bill grows up in the small town of Duck Nostril, Tennessee. Jill grows up in Squidlips, Utah. In Squidlips, the word "flurfle" means "to roll a ball". In Duck Nostril, "flurfle" is a vulgarity that means "to copulate". The two meet, and Jill uses the word in casual conversation. Bill is shocked and outraged. Jill realizes her mistake, and decides not to use the word in his presence again. But it's too late, Bill has already filed a suit for sexual harrassment.

A more realistic scenario: In Bill's hometown, the word "girl" is used interchangeably with "woman". There is no disrespect meant by the term. Children are "boys and girls", and adults are "guys and girls". Jill, however, feels that the word "girl" diminishes her, and is used by men to treat women like children. And in many cases she's right, but even so, Bill has the highest respect for Jill as well as all women. He simply thinks that "girls" are females of any age; that's simply what the word means to him. If Jill decides to correct him, that's fine. But if she is offended right away, then she is refusing to see other cultural variations of language.

I was at a restaurant one time with my stepmother. Our waitress kept calling me "Honey" and "Sweetie". After the waitress was gone, my stepmother asked me, "Doesn't that bother you? Don't you find it disrespectful?" I replied, "No, I'm not insane." I understand why some people would be offended by that sort of thing... I guess... but so what? This woman obviously meant the words as compliments, so why should I take them as anything else? The waitress must have grown up in an area where that was considered acceptable and complimentary. My stepmother obviously did not. And I was raised in some third place, possibly an alternate universe, where children are taught to consider the context more than the actual words.

But my stepmother is also very religious. That has little to do with the conversation above, but there does seem to be a connection there. Over-religious people are more easily offended than sane people. And having rejected science, over-religious people also seem to be a bit less intelligent. Okay, I'm overgeneralizing. Believe it or not, I have no problems with religion in and of itself. That's why I say "over-religious" - these are the people who not only worship a higher power, but also insist that everyone else do the same. These are the ones who go to church twice a week, listen to their pastor read Bible stories about loving your fellow man, then somehow turn that message into "why gay people should be killed."

But they're not the only ones. Everyone has thick skin these days, hence "Political Correctness". Thanks to PC, I have no idea how to describe someone. Like, "differently abled" - when something is bad, people don't like to talk directly about it, so they dance around the issue. So the more syllables a description has, the worse the condition sounds. That's one reason I don't like terms like "people of color" and "african american"... it makes it sound like there's something wrong with being black.

Question: in the "flurfle" scenario, did the genders sound reversed to you? You sexist pig :)

So, what offends me? Censorship. Sexism. Racism. People who put their own preferences above that of all others. People who burn books. People who think all TV shows/movies/books/video games should be wiped clean of anything they consider offensive, just in case a child should happen to watch one of them. People who think that this country should be ruled by religion. People who are offended by the nude human body (to clarify: it's okay if you don't particularly want to see nudity, or don't want kids to see it, or find certain bodies a "turn-off", but being "offended" by non-sexual nudity is unnatural and mentally unhealthy, IMO). But the bottom line is, what offends me most is people who are easily offended.

The difference between what is offensive, and what should be offensive, lies in the heart of the offender. Often the people who try to say something diplomatically, do so because the subject matter is offensive in itself. If you ever find yourself saying something like, "I'm not racist, but..." ...don't even bother finishing the sentence; you're about to say something racist. Heck, once in college, I overheard someone say, "I ain't racist or nuthin', but I just think all those n*****s should go back where they came from!"

Some other examples I hear a lot:
"I'm not racist, but I just don't think whites should marry blacks."
"I'm no homophobe, but I don't think they should show two men kissing on TV."
"I've got nothing against fags, as long as they stay away from me."
"I'm not sexist, but I think a woman's place is in the home."

So in cases like that, I'm offended. But I'm not offended by what was said; I'm offended by what was felt. Words are just words; it takes an entire idiot to offend my sensibilities. If you disagree - if you've said one of the above examples and feel totally justified by it - feel free to post, I'd love to discuss it further.

Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut

2006-12-07T08:46:00.000-06:00

Wow, it's finally legal!

Okay, first a little backstory. Note, this is more simplified than accurate, so if you want the whole story, look it up. There's links at the end, with more info.

In 1978, Richard Donner directed the cinematic blockbuster, Superman, starring Christopher Reeve. Donner went ahead and shot footage for Superman 2 as well. However, when the time came to produce Superman 2, they gave the project to Richard Lester, and much of Donner's footage was discarded. Then, a couple of years ago, some guy put together a lot of Donner's lost footage, took out some of Lester's, and released what he dubbed the "Richard Donner" version of the film.

You have to admire a guy like this. Though he knew it was risky, he sold copies of it over the internet. But - he only charged for the price of the tape and the shipping. He refused to make any profit on the project; he only wanted to more people to see what he considered to be a superior version of the film. Well, the tactic must have worked, because now it's been officially released on DVD.

This new version does not replace the original version, in my opinion. While a lot of the changes are for the better, the execution isn't perfect. Some of the restored scenes are actually screen tests or other raw footage that doesn't quite mesh with the rest of the film. The sound might be bad in one scene, the editing my be jumpy in another, the lighting might be lacking somewhere else. So if you're just in the mood to sit down and enjoy a Superman movie, you might want to stick with the original version. The RD Cut is more of a fascinating look at how different directors handle the same story.

Now for the specific changes. Note, there's a few spoilers ahead. Granted, if you're reading this, then you've probably already seen the normal version of S2 enough times to know the importants stuff. Three Kryptonian villians find their way to Earth, Superman gives up his powers to be with Lois, etc. But even so, if you want to be surprised at the new stuff, stop reading now.

Right from the start, you know you're watching a different movie. One of the earliest scenes - where Lois investigates a group of terrorists in Paris - has been cut completely. In the theatrical cut, the Superman throws the terrorist bomb off into space, and the resulting explosion breaks the Phantom Zone villains out of their prison. In the Donner version, the Phantom Zone prison is shattered by one of the missles Superman deflected at the end of Superman 1.

Lois Lane is no longer obsessed with freshly squeezed orange juice, but her vitamin deficiency hasn't hurt her eyesight any - she makes the Clark/Superman connection much earlier in the film. She can't even wait for Niagra Falls this time, opting instead to jump out the window of the Daily Planet. Just like the other version, Clark manages to save her without changing into his tights. But once again, Lois isn't fooled for long, and soon Clark is forced to reveal his secret. Lois doesn't wait around for Clark to stick his hand in the fireplace this time. After all, she has places to go, words to misspell. Now she takes the more direct approach... she just shoots him.

"You know, Lois, if you'd been wrong, you would have just killed Clark Kent." "Not with blanks." D'oh! Apparently super-genius is not one of his powers this time around. By the way, this scene is one of the more obvious "screen test" clips. You can tell right away that it was shot at a different time than the rest of the film.

So, the Kryptonian Kryminals reach Earth, and they're a little less cheery this time around. The more lighthearted scenes have been cut, such as Ursa's arm wrestling and Non's inability to use heat vision. Actually, overall there is a lot less humor in this version of the film. Apparently Richard Lester thought that Donner's vision was too dark, and decided to throw in as much levity as possible for the theatrical release. Personally, I always thought it was cute how the bad guys changed Mount Rushmore to look like themselves. But in the Donner's cut, it's a much more grim scene involving the toppling of the Washington Monument. But that does flow better, because it leads right in to the "assault on the White House" scene.

Meanwhile, as Lois basks in the afterglow at the Fortress of Solitude, Clark (who really needs to buy a TV for his arctic getaway) decides to give up his powers. But this time he talks to his father instead of his mother. And it's a much more interesting conversation, IMO. But even better, after Clark realizes he screwed up and treks back to the Fortress, we find out HOW he gets his powers back. In the theatrical version, he just sulks around until he sees a glowing crystal. In the Donner cut, he actually gets to have one last conversation with Jor-El. It seems Papa-El had one more trick up his sleeve after all, and is able to use the last of his own power to restore Clark. And before you can say "the son becomes the father and the father becomes the son," Superman is back in action.

So, the Zod Squad invades the Daily Planet, and while there's a few alternate takes, there's not much to report here. I think they cut the line where Lois Lane's co-worker says, "The big one's just as strong as Superman!" And more humor is lost when they take out the "persistent payphone guy" from the "bad guys blow Metropolis" scene.

Now, for my favorite change in the movie. The villains confront Superman at the Fortress of Solitude. And... No stupor-ridiculous made-up powers! No "throwing the giant S symbol!" No "teleport tag!" Just a straight cut to the final confrontation, where Superman tricks them into losing their powers.

But this payoff comes at a price. For starters, the Fortress of Solitude sinks into the ground (part of Clark's punishment for using up the last of Jor-El's energy). Then, we are treated to the same silly ending as Superman 1 - instead of using a "super-amnesia kiss" to make Lois forget his identity, this time Superman feels that Ms Lane's forbidden knowledge is so important, that he uses his "reverse the Earth's rotation to turn back time" trick for that as well. Uh... were we planning on ending every Superman movie this way? Because at the end of S1 they made it pretty darn clear that this type of thing was not allowed, but Supes was doing it anyway because he loves Lois so much. Does Supes do this a lot? When else does he do turn back the clock? When his milk goes sour? When his favorite football team loses?

But the worst part is, it's not very clear just how much was changed from Superman's time trick. Did the entire movie not happen? Because even after turning back the clock, he still feels the need to return to that little cafe up North, and show up that bully who had pushed him around earlier. Okay, if he fought that guy AFTER telling Lois his identity, but he turned back time to before he told Lois, then he basically just beat up some random jerk at a cafe. "I've, uh, been working out." Uh, sure, but... who ARE you?

The important thing to remember here, is that while this is a great way to see a lot of deleted/alternate footage at once, this is NOT neccessarily how the movie would have turned out had Richard Donner completed it back in 1980. Overall, I prefer the Richard Donner cut, or at least I prefer most of the choices made. But the lack of a "clean" cut makes it much harder to watch. So while I'm happy to own a copy, I'm also glad I own the theatrical release as well, because that's the one I'll grab when I'm just in the mood to veg and watch super-beings fight. Still, the Richard Donner cut is a must-have for superfans.

For more info, check these out:

Wikipedia Article

IMDB Superman II Trivia

NeverWinter Nights 2 - First Impressions

2006-11-16T08:45:00.000-06:00

Generally I try to avoid buying PC games when they first come out. For one thing, I rarely have a computer that will run the newest games. Also, PC game prices tend to fall a lot more than console games. I can wait a year to buy the newest PS2 game, and it might have gone from $60 down to $40. Or I can wait six months to buy the newest PC game, and it will have gone from $50 to $15.

But I'll make an exception for the NeverWinter Nights series. As a player, I was curious, but I wasn't in a hurry. But as a builder, I simply couldn't wait to see what I was going to be up against this time. I missed out the first time around; I didn't get Itropa up and running until NWN had been out for well over a year. This time I wanted to get in on the ground floor, and hopefully grab a larger player base.

Well, it ain't gonna happen.

The game is beautiful, much prettier than the original NWN. But on my computer, it runs like a molasses-covered slug dragging a cart full of anvils uphill. Which is to say, slow. Now, my computer's no powerhouse, but it more than matches NWN2's minimum specs. I hate it when companies list such bare-bones system specs. Believe me, it might run, sure, but nobody's going to want to play it like this.

The crazy part is that it runs slower than Oblivion. Oblivion, the most graphically-praised piece of eye candy to pop out of hypeville this year. Okay, I can't play either game without turning off nearly everything. But at least with all the candy turned off, Oblivion actually runs at a decent speed. It looks like a PS1 game, but it's playable. But playing NWN2 on my computer feels like I'm playing online, on the laggiest server ever.

The funny part is that the toolset actually works pretty well. I had a lot of fun making the hills go up and down using the new terrain engine. No more aztec-esque tiered hills; now we have actual slopes! And there's so many options. Five minutes in the toolset and I counted dozens of features I'd always wished for when using NWN1's toolset. But it's also a very intimidating program, with lots and lots of windows. Finally I feel justified for splurging on a widescreen monitor.

As for the game itself - I can't comment on that just yet. From the little bit I've been able to stand, it plays like the first one. It's point-and-click turn-based battle; you either like it or you don't. The interface is a bit more streamlined than NWN1's, but it takes getting used to. Most of the time it seems simpler, but occasionally I've had to look all over the place to perform certain actions.

As good as the game is (or seems to be), I still have a few minor gripes.

When it comes to D&D/NWN players, there's two extremes - roleplayers and powergamers. Roleplayers ignore the original campaign and go straight online, because the world just seems empty when it's just you and the computer. They always stay in character, because they play just for the chance to live another life for a while. Powergamers, on the other hand, enjoy getting stuff. Experience points, gold, items; it's all about the rewards. They want to make the richest, most powerful character as quickly as possible, so they can enjoy blasting their way through crowds of enemies.

Like most people, I'm a little bit of both. In my case, sometimes I'm only in the mood to kill things, and other times I'm only in the mood to play pretend with people. Unfortunatly, NWN2 disappointed me as both a powergamer and a roleplayer. Before you read the following, keep in mind that I've not had a chance to play much yet, so I might be missing some options.

Powergamers - No epic levels yet. I'm sure they'll include them in an expansion pack, along with a new campaign that requires high-level characters. They probably felt there just wasn't any need for epic levels yet. But even so, why not include them for the modders who want to build more epic worlds? It feels like they left it out specifically so that we'd have a reason to buy the next expansion. Over on GameFAQs.com, there's a FAQ listing all the feats that can be given to a character using a certain cheat. I notice that list includes epic feats. So it seems they have been programmed, just locked out.

Call me a munchkin if you want, but when I'm in a hack-n-slash mood, life begins at 20. With all the new feats and classes, sometimes there just isn't enough room in a 20-level career to build the exact character you want. For instance, I'd love to build the ultimate two-weapon swordsman. Let's see... I'd make him a Fighter/Duelist/Weapon Master... In addition to the feats required for the two Prestige classes (WM alone takes several), I'd also like Weapon Finesse, Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Greater Two Weapon Fighting, Two Weapon Defense, Greater Two Weapon Defense, Greater Weapon Focus, Superior Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Specialization, Improved Parry (assuming Parry isn't worthless this time around), Power Attack, Cleave, Great Cleave, Improved Critical, Power Critical, possibly Exotic weapons depending on my weapon(s) of choice...

Actually, this would be hard to do even with 40 levels. But on NWN1, sometimes I enjoy playing with leveler mods, to see what sort of high-level monstrocities I can make. One of my favorites is the dual-kukri-weilding Weapon Master. With a pair of keen kukris, she crits on nearly every other hit. And she's hitting so many times per round, there's at least two crits per round. Once she gets the Devastating Critical feat, most battles don't take long.

Oh well, if all I cared about was high levels, I'd play Everquest. I actually have more gripes about the Roleplay side at the moment. I love the new character creation system - you have a lot more options when it comes to designing your character's face. But there's fewer hair color options than before. I have a thing for redheads, and there just isn't a good shade of red in there. It's a little thing, but I really get into my characters, and I like for them to look just right.

I also don't like that when you remove all your armor/clothing, you're still wearing a full medieval outfit. Again, not a big gripe, I just prefer a naked character look naked (well, in their underwear, anyway). You could be wearing some sort of Barbarian clothing - the kind of caveman bikini you'd see in a Conan movie - then you take it off, and underneath it you're wearing an outfit with full length leggings and sleeves. The developers probably figured that the only people who'd want to see skin are the ones using the game for cybersex. Well, they're wrong; I come across innocent roleplay uses all the time. When you RP enough, all kinds of situations happen sooner or later. But as I said, that's a minor gripe - I can always find an outfit that looks like underwear, and put it on the quickslot.

This time around, the developers hyped up the game's branching storyline, the importance of your alignment and the alignments of your companions, and how your choices affect the game's story. In other words, it's like the Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic games. While it was cool playing through the KotORs twice, once for light side and once for dark, I don't feel the same about the NWN series. With NWN, once you play through the original campaign, you go and download another module to play through. So I really don't need multiple endings. Give me one really well-written ending instead. Besides, the KotORs needed replay value, since they didn't have any content beyond the main story. The NWN games offer unlimited worlds, so I'd rather they have put that energy into other parts of the game.

Besides, who's the target audience? The powergamers don't care about the plot, and the role-players are going to skip the original campaign and go straight for the online servers. Keep in mind, however, this is coming from someone who never even finished any of the campaigns that came with NWN1 or its expansions. So your mileage may vary.

A couple of more gripes about the interface - I really miss being able to right-click things and getting lots of options. It was fast and intuitive. Also, I don't care for the new inventory system. I miss NWN1's dynamic icons. NWN2's icons look so generic.

I know that overall, my first impression seems kind of negative. But really, I like the game. Once I get a computer that will run it, I'm sure I'll play the hell out of it. But do I really want to buy a whole computer for one game? Well, I've done it before, and I might do it again. But it's going to be a while. Until then, its going to gather dust on my shelf, next to its arch-enemy, Oblivion.